How “virtual” the teaching and learning can be?

Being “virtual” is something that I dreamed about for a long time. How fascinating could it be to overcome the barriers of geographical distance and hence to a certain extent, the time!

In my academic life, my research interests are centered around this very concept of “virtual environments”. I have been researching into virtual organisations, virtual collaborative environments, virtual research environments and of course, virtual learning environments for teaching and learning.

Virtual learning and teaching covers a wide spectrum of concepts, technologies and processes. The term virtual learning is often used synonymously with distance learning. Noting the above, Carty (1999) defines distance learning to cover education settings that deliver training and information between two or more places, utilising modes such as synchronous (using same time communications), asynchronous (communications that do not require participants to exchange information at the same time), one way (information delivered from one point to one or many other points), two-way (any communication in which the flow is bi-directional but not limited to synchronous), multi-point (information delivered simultaneously from one place to many other places) and multi-cast (usually consisting of transmission of a video or audio clip to the computers of many users).

Virtual (or distance) learning concept (hereafter referred to as DL)  immerged in late 70’s mainly with the establishment of the Open University in UK and with the development of a mixed media approach to teaching (Hellman 2003). The success of DL attributes to the growth of the technological developments related to the Internet, increased awareness, proficiency and wide accessibility to the Internet (Lindner, 1999). Furthermore, the ability of DL programmes to provide skills development opportunities required for professionals to upgrade their skills in a more flexible manner while carrying out fulltime employment (Gammie et al., 2002) undoubtedly helped establishing its roots in vocationally oriented educational programmes (as the case with the quantity surveying education where my experiences and interests are based).

Needless to say, traditional teaching methods and practices may not be applicable directly within DL settings. When I first attempted to deliver an online synchronous lecture (for a cohort of 35 Masters students from all over the world), the first difference I noticed as a tutor was the sense of “isolation” or the “detachment” from the students. When conducting face to face lectures I often read students’ reactions and adjust the lecturing style (and sometimes the content to a certain degree) to get them more engaged. I believe this follows the UKPSF guideline (V1) which states respect for learners. However, I felt senseless when I was doing a lecture to a dumb computer for the first time, as I could not capture the reactions of the learners.

I firmly believe, distance learning or otherwise, all the learners should be given the opportunity for the best possible learning experience. This include, what I believe as the “social aspects” of learning. These often include aspects such as team working, peer learning, student-teacher interaction beyond the structured lesson, etc. Indeed, I am not alone bearing this view, this requirement has been emphasized by other researchers as well. For example, Whatley (2004) emphasize the same view with the use of Kolb’s (Kolb, 1984) stages of experiential learning (concrete experience, reflective observation, conceptualisation and active experimentation).

Commenting about the teamwork in DL settings, Whatley (2004:55) suggests,

“Students undertaking online courses should be given a similar opportunity (Kolb’s stages of experiential learning) to experience team working, but where face-to-face contact is not possible, technologies may be able to provide additional resources to make the online experience comparable”

Whatley’s comment above exposes a relatively unexplored area of educational research. To what extent the technologies used in DL cater for the “social aspects” of learning and how that aspect can be improved? Understanding this aspect is a core knowledge requirement in the UKPSF framework (The use and value of appropriate learning technologies K4).

In fact I believe the DL practices today are technology driven (practices are developed to suit the capabilities of the technologies available) rather than the technologies were developed to cater for the needs of DL. I believe more research would be needed covering this aspect, if the true potential of DL is to be explored.

I am now into the fourth year of my online lecturing (predominantly to masters’ level students), and I believe I am now a bit more matured. I do not get the “senseless” feeling that strongly now, and I can sense the students’ reactions better. For this I use the prompts more frequently than in face-to-face sessions, the prompts ranging from asking the simple question “do you understand?” to asking more direct questions from students (often pin pointed). In a DL setting, I realised, asking open questions on voluntary basis would not work as expected, as there are too many “hiding places” available. Further, I often custom develop the DL lecture material to include more self-phased learning material as exercises and often remain online for 15 minutes after the lecture session just to allow the moment of tutor-student interaction to go beyond the planned lesson. I believe these are in line with the UKPSF guidelines related to design and plan programme of study (UKPSF-A1) and development of appropriate  subject material( UKPSF-K1). Further linking my research to teaching practices in well in line with UKPSF guidelines on “engage in continuing professional development in subjects/disciplines and their pedagogy, incorporating research, scholarship and the evaluation of professional practices (A6)”.

Looking back about the progress I made so in this particular area, I believe, there are further opportunities for improvement. Especially, with the level of confidence gained through various discussions we had in PGCAP module I believe, I can experiment with different student motivation and engagement techniques. One interesting experiment would be to use “props” in DL environments and my current lesson planning for the next semester involves devising strategy for using “virtual” props for teaching!!!

[cartoon from: http://neslihandurmusoglu.edublogs.org/files/2011/02/cartoons-yf6mps.png]

References

Carty, W. (1999), “Distance education in the developing world”, The advising quarterly for professionals in international education, Summer 1999.

Gammie, E., Gammie, B. & Duncan, F. (2002) Operating a distance learning module within an undergraduate work placement: some reflections. Education and Training, 44 (1) 11-22.

Hellman, J.A. (2003), “The riddle of distance education: promise, problems and applications for development”, Technology, business and society programme paper series, No. 9, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

Kolb, D. (1984), “Experiential learning”, London: Prentice Hall

Lindner, J.R. (1999), “Usage and impact of the Internet for Appalachian chambers of commerce”, Journal of applied communications, Vol. 83.1, pp 42-52.

Whatley, J. and Bell, F. (2003), “Discussion across borders: benefits for collaborative learning”, Education media international, Vol 40.1, pp 139-152.