Understanding Pedagogic Collaboration in Online Settings

Author(s):

Helen Coker(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

22. Research in Higher Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

22 SES 09 C,

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-24

13:30-15:00

Room:

K5.09

Chair:

Jaakko Kauko

Contribution

Lecturers working in Higher Education are increasingly engaging with digital technology when teaching (Adekola, 2016, Stott, 2016); working with students in online spaces and supporting academic work with digital tools. Technology has changed the ways in which we access information and, like the knowledge driven workforce, has implications for Education (Bates, 2016). The change of setting mediates practice, breaking down geographic and temporal boundaries (Jung and Latchem, 2011, Kim et. al., 2015). Research has identified the importance of online social presence (Kehrwald, 2008) and explored the factors which influence student engagement (Park, 2015). Lecturers, teaching online, are positioned differently to students, as well as creating presence themselves and interacting in the online space they also support student engagement. The online setting presents the potential for Lecturers to utilise collaborative activities when teaching, capitalising on the lack of physical and temporal boundaries in online interactions.

There are now a generation of experienced online lecturers, particularly in institutions who were quick to take up online delivery. Their experience and knowledge of practice can add to the knowledge base, on effective online learning. This research focused on understanding pedagogic collaboration: the use of collaborative activities when teaching. Focusing on Lecturers’ approaches to collaborative activity, when teaching online, the research sought to understand the changing setting and inform effective development of online modules.

The research asked:

What influences collaboration in the online environment?
What is the nature of the online learning experience and to what extent is it collaborative?
Do Lecturers approach online collaborative activities with the same aims and purpose?
What effect does digital technology have on collaboration, in the educational setting?
In what ways does digital technology influence the teaching experience?

Teaching online was observed to be a culturally situated practice, the online space mediated participation but did not determine it; lecturers were observed to use the same online tools in qualitatively different ways, and with fundamentally different purposes. Digital tools mediated experiences, but the intentions and congruity of purpose, in relation to the participants involved, ultimately defined their usefulness. The observations which the research drew highlighted the layers of context in which Lecturers were situated, when teaching online. The structurally framing context, the wider epistemological context and the individual specific context situated Lecturers practice, resulting in different approaches to online collaborative activity.

Method

This research explored the mediating role of the online environment in relation to online teaching in Higher Education. Signs and tools, both physical and cognitive, were perceived to mediate participation (Wertsch, 2007). In the online setting digital technology mediated tutors’ interactions with their students. The research design took an ethnographic stance, which aimed to observe participation and interaction, within the online space. The research utilised an iterative mixed methods approach. This enabled exploration of the “socio-cultural horizon” and the situated nature of learning (Stahl, 2010). Data from the online space was approached qualitatively and used to observe student and tutor participation. Visualisations were created of online dialogue, and patterns of participation were compared using graphical representations. Layers of observation were built up which created a rich picture of the mediating role of the online setting. The research gathered data from eighteen undergraduate modules, enabling breadth of observation. The modules were delivered by a distributed university in the UK. Using data enabled the observation of eighteen modules, from four different undergraduate degree programmes. The degree programmes were all delivered online and spanned a range of disciplines. The participation patterns, of over one thousand student experiences, and over forty tutors, were observed through the data phase. Fifteen tutors were then interviewed and nine also took part in a subsequent focus group. The interviews utilised a phenomenographic structure (Entwhistle et. al., 2013) and were analysed narratively (Clandinin, 2007, Gubrium and Holstein, 2012). At each stage of data collection evidence was analysed and informed the following stage. Observations were shared, and discussed, with participants. Before proceeding with the research ethical clearance was granted by the university ethics committee. Data collected from the online space was kept secure. It was not shared in its raw form; all data were made anonymous, before being presented in publications or to tutors’. During the interviews tutors were only shown data from module they taught on, data they had access to through their own module space. Participants’ perspectives were respected and the researchers own positioning within the field was clearly acknowledged. All interview, and focus group, recordings and transcripts were stored securely and destroyed following completion of the research. Any evidence used in analysis was made anonymous before being included in any written, or verbal, presentations.

Expected Outcomes

Traditional teaching practice was found to be challenged by the re-positioning of the tutor, within the online setting. Visual cues, such as facial expression and body language were lost; text-based communications were inherently different from face-to-face experiences, and both enabled and constrained interactions. The loss of cues presented a challenge, in relation to both creating presence and receiving feedback. Lecturers worked hard to project themselves as people, through the online space. They also developed strategies for gaining feedback, the text-based nature of online interactions often led to higher levels of disclosure from students. Immediacy was identified as an influencing factor in relation to online interactions. The online setting mediated Lecturers working environment. The boundary between work and home was porous; the potential for “anywhere, anytime” (Wright and Parchoma, 2011) learning created the potential for “everywhere, all the time teaching”. Online practice challenged traditional physical and temporal boundaries, the responsibility for setting boundaries becoming that of the Lecturer. Self-efficacy and organisation (Stott, 2016) have been found to be important for online learners, this research highlighted their centrality for the online Lecturer. Lecturers adapted to these changes in different ways. The research suggested that practice in the online space, and in particular pedagogic collaboration, was shaped by the purpose, philosophy and pedagogy of Lecturers, and situated in layers of context. Lecturers shaped the online spaces in which they worked and their practice was shaped by those online settings.

References

Adekola, J., Dale, V.H. and Gardiner, K., 2016. Student experiences of transitions into blended learning. Bates, T., 2015. Teaching in a digital age open textbook: https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubccommunityandpartnerspublicati/52387/items/1.0224023 [accessed 12th November 2016] Clandinin, D, J (2007) ‘Handbook of Narrative Enquiry, Mapping a Methodology’ Sage: London Entwistle, N and Karagiannopoulou, E (2013) ‘Influences on personal understanding: Intentions, approaches to learning, perceptions of assessment, and a ‘meeting of minds’ Psychology Teaching Review, vol. 19 (2), pp. 80-96 Gubrium, J, Holstein, J, Marvasti, A and McKinney, K (2012) ‘The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft, Second Edition, SAGE e-book accessed 2nd September 2015 Jung, I. and Latchem, C., 2011. A model for e‐education: Extended teaching spaces and extended learning spaces. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), pp.6-18. Kim, Y, Glassman, M and Williams, M, S (2015) ‘Connecting agents: Engagement and motivation in online collaboration’ Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 49, pp. 333-342 Kehrwald (2008) ‘Understanding social presence in text-based online learning environments’ Distance Education, vol. 29, no. 1 Park, J, Y (2015) ‘Student interactivity and teacher participation: an application of legitimate peripheral participation in higher education online learning environments’ Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 24 (3), pp. 389 – 406 Stahl, G (2010) ‘Guiding group cognition in CSCL’ Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 5 pp. 255-258 Stott, P (2016) ‘The perils of a lack of student engagement: Reflections of a “lonely, brave and rather exposed” online instructor’ British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 47 (1), pp. 51-64 Wertsch (2007) ‘Mediation’ in ‘The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky’ ed. Daniels, Cole and Wertsch, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge Wright and Parchoma, 2011 ‘Technologies for Learning? An actor-network theory critique of ‘affordances’ in research on mobile learning’ Research in Learning Technology, vol.19, no. 3, pp. 247-258

Author Information

Helen Coker (presenting / submitting)

University of the Highlands and Islands

Education

Boat of Garten

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.