![[back arrow]](../images/back_teal.GIF)
Back to
Research
Management Product
CMC: Computer-Mediated Communication
Transformative Instructional Design
The first 3 sites are Brent's links for ID sites; the 4th is a synopsis
of Pea's paper.
Computer-Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW)
Winiecki, D. (1999, March 2). Keeping the thread: Adapting conversational practice to help distance students and instructors manage discussions in an asynchronous learning network. DEOSNEWS 9 (2). Available: Post to LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU the following command: GET DEOSNEWS skip a space and then type 99-00002
In this article, Professor Winiecki from Boise State University discusses the communications practices inherent in face-to-face interaction, shows how they are different from online conversations, and proposes some interaction practices that may be useful for courses that use asynchronous learning networks (ALNs) to support distance education. In normal conversation, people take turns speaking; they repair the conversation where it flags (by re-introducing prior topics to the conversation); they don't ovelap threads of thought; and they formulate ideas (summarize, clarify, elaborate, etc.). The purpose of a formulation is to "repackage the history of the discussion" and to provide a logical "lead in" to the point being made in the current message. These practices are often lacking in electronic conferencing, leading to confusion among students as they lose the thread of the conversation. Winiecki proposes using conferencing software that provides a "node and network" view of the conversation threads to map the conversation; embedding "snips" of previous messages in new messages; and providing synopses of main themes where appropriate.
Fischer, G. (1995). Distributed Cognition, Learning Webs, and Domain-Oriented Design Environments Indianapolis: Proceedings of the CSCL'95 Conference.
They are dealing with the interface between design and learning. Design must be treated as an evolutionary process, in which all stakeholders continue to learn new information and insights as the process unfolds. Collaboration is essential, since the relevant knowledge is distributed within each individual, among the group, and in the environment (external reference aids). Norman refers to this as distributed cognition.
A domain-oriented design environment is a computational environment that supports collaboration among a design team. Not only does it store the knowledge base shared by the group, it also includes components, checklists, and worksheets that designers can use to try out a specific design. Its goals are to make objects and ideas easily accessible to designers to try them out, to support reflection-in-action, to integrate problem framing and problem solving, to allow design-in-use, and to increase the feedback to the designer. The idea is to allow the designer to experience a simulation of the actual design. Moreover, the simulation can be annotated, thereby contextualizing messages to other stakeholders right along with the design, rather than in a decontextualized e-mail message.
Fischer states that integrating working and learning potentially increases motivation, because the designer has a continual feeling of challenge, direct engagement, the right tools for the job, and a focus on the task. Designers actively desire and control learning. They are successful in finding and using new information. They can see the immediate benefit of learning something new to apply to their current working situation. And they can achieve interesting results with a reasonably small effort.
Essentially, this paper is theoretical in nature, though they do give an example of a voice dialog design environment. Their emphasis is on the fact that they have developed a conceptural framework as well as an innovative system that supports not only the design and creation of an artifact, but also supports the professional communities engaged in the design process. Such an environment integrates learning, working, and collaborating; engagement in authentic problems; self-direction in learning tasks; and creation of new content and domain areas.
Ferraro, A., Rogers, E., & Geisler, C. (1995). Team learning through computer supported collaborative design Indianapolis: Proceedings of the CSCL'95 Conference
Unlike the McKenna, S. (1995). Evaluating IMM: Issues for researchers Australia: Open Learning Institute. [On-line.] Available: http://www.csu.edu.au/division/oli/oli-rd/occpap17/eval.htm
Ms. McKenna separates two key issues: how to evaluate the learning and how to evaluate the material. Like most of the research, there's no significant difference for new technologies to enhance the learning process, vs. traditional instruction. If a significant difference was found, it had to do with instructional strategies or interactivity, not just with IMM (interactive multimedia) technology.
Material can be evaluated in terms of its:
Ongoing evaluation during the development stage, as well as pilot testing, are often forgotten - just like needs assessments. This has to be put back into the ISD process.
New research shows that learning with media is a complementary process within which representations are constructed and procedures are performed, either by the learner or the media, and that these media should be researched in terms of the cognitively relevant characteristics of their technology, symbol systems and processing capabilities and the ways in which these relate to cognition and learning.
Kearsley reports that the results of evaluations done on various interactive multimedia projects suggest that students learn material to a deeper level and understand more connections among concepts. They may also adopt a different type of learning style - a problem solving approach that involves the testing of hypothesis and the building of models about a topic.
Romiszowski also fears that technology is leading education and training in directions that may not be pedagogically ideal but which happen to be economically or politically expedient. Design and development of a product has to be integrated with the design and development of the supporting delivery/discussion environments. Though interactive multimedia may be exciting technically, it does not automatically lead to better educational programs. (see Norman on human-centered technology.)
Herrmann, F. (1995). Listserver communication: The discourse of community-building Indianapolis: Proceedings of the CSCL'95 Conference
Herrmann has found that, in a 3-year ethnographic study of an international, 400 member group of academics communicating with each other on 5-10 listservs, three recurrent patterns of communicative activity emerge:
They are different from the usual publish and perish communications of academic communities, since they bring about companionship among a virtual society of academics. They increase productivity, and allow for building and diffusion of knowledge.
Back to
Research
Management Product
Lorraine Sherry