Computer Mediated Communications in PLT Best Practice

966 views

Published on

Computer Mediated Communications in PLT Best Practice

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Computer Mediated Communications in PLT Best Practice

  1. 1. Computer-mediated Communication in PLT – a review Kristoffer Greaves
  2. 2. CMC in PLT? <ul><li>CMC: Computer Mediated Communication </li></ul><ul><li>PLT: Practical Legal Training </li></ul><ul><li>CMC can be any communication involving Information and Communication Technology (ICT), eg: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Emails </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Online discussion groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Blogging and Micro Blogging </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social Networking </li></ul></ul><ul><li>My focus is on text-based bilateral or multilateral communications </li></ul>
  3. 3. Background to this Presentation <ul><li>Proposed study re factors influencing learner satisfaction with CMC as a teaching method in PLT (2011) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Investigate relationship between use of CMC as a teaching method, learners’ behaviours & satisfaction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ascertain learners’ perceptions of own behaviours during the CMC activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compare perceptions with positive behaviours identified in community of inquiry framework literature </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recommend potential improvements to the fit between CMC, positive learning behaviours, and Learner satisfaction </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Assumptions <ul><li>Constructivist and learner-centred approach </li></ul><ul><li>Learner satisfaction relates to engagement, motivation and persistence </li></ul><ul><li>Satisfaction and learning behaviours relates to learners’ contexts </li></ul><ul><li>Community of Inquiry Framework </li></ul><ul><li>Marzano Taxonomy of Educational Objectives </li></ul>
  5. 5. Community of Inquiry Framework Three Core Elements
  6. 6. Community of Inquiry Framework
  7. 7. Marzano and Kendall Domains and Levels of Processing
  8. 8. Self System Level of Processing Interaction of learners’ attitudes, beliefs and emotions determines motivation and attention to learning Decision to engage with, and the amount of energy to allocate to, a learning task
  9. 9. Literature Review <ul><li>Search terms: “satisfaction” and “online learning” in abstracts on ERIC and 10 electronic databases of peer reviewed journals </li></ul><ul><li>Selected 76 reports for review from Canada, USA, UK, Taiwan and China </li></ul><ul><li>Sample sizes range from 16 – 5000 </li></ul><ul><li>Methodologies included surveys (47), mixed methods (19), content analysis (4), action research (2), interviews (2), literature review alone (2) </li></ul><ul><li>Compared methodology, variables, sample size and population </li></ul>
  10. 10. Themes - Satisfaction with CMC <ul><li>Learning/personality styles </li></ul><ul><li>Perceived importance/nature of learning task </li></ul><ul><li>Self-efficacy/ICT efficacy </li></ul><ul><li>Learner/Learner Interactions </li></ul><ul><li>Learner/Instructor Interactions </li></ul><ul><li>Learner/Learning Management System interactions </li></ul><ul><li>Learner demand for flexibility </li></ul>
  11. 11. Are Learning/Personality Styles Related to Satisfaction with CMC? <ul><li>Personality types related to variations in CMC usage: Wilson (2000) co-relational survey, 95 cases </li></ul><ul><li>Learner attitudes to thinking and learning affect satisfaction with CMC: Han and Park (2008) survey & content analysis, 43 cases </li></ul>YES NO Downing and Chim (2004) survey, 160 cases Hong (2002) case study, 26 cases Lu and Chiou (2010) survey, 522 cases Kanuka & Nocente (2003) survey, 204 cases Manochehri and Young (2006) comparative study, 36 online; 58 face-to-face cases Akdemir and Koszalka (2008) survey, 12 cases)
  12. 12. Does Perceived Importance or Nature of Learning Task affect Satisfaction <ul><li>Other factors intervene with satisfaction even where deep learning principles are used: Wickersham and McGee (2008) action research, 30 participants </li></ul><ul><li>Learners’ perception of proportion of personal effort to learning outcome relevant: Atherton (1999) interviews, 124 participants </li></ul>YES NO Liaw (2008) survey, 424 cases Bures, Amundsen and Abrami (2002) survey, 167 cases Lin, Lin and Laffey (2008) factor analysis, 110 cases Gilbert, Morton and Rowley (2007) survey, 19 cases
  13. 13. Does Self-Efficacy and ICT Efficacy affect satisfaction ? YES NO Drennan, Kennedy and Pisarki (2005) 2 surveys, A: 248 cases, B: 256 cases Pena-Shaff, Altman and Stephenson (2005) case study, 35 participants Lin, Lin and Laffey (2008) structural equation modelling , 110 cases Tennyson and Hsia (2010) survey, 212 cases Liaw (2008) survey, 424 cases Sun et al. (2008) survey, 295 cases
  14. 14. Do Learner/Learner Interactions affect satisfaction? YES NO Pena-Shaff, Altman & Stephenson (2005) case study, 35 cases Hong (2002) case study, 26 cases Gilbert, Morton & Rowley (2007) survey, 19 cases Rovai (2002) survey, 314 cases Rovai (2003) survey, 262 cases Drouin (2008) survey, 71 cases Caspi, Gorsky & Chajut (2003) content analysis, 7706 messages Finlay, Desmet & Evans (2004) survey 2 groups A: 97, B: 27 ~ So & Brush (2008) survey, 48 cases
  15. 15. Learners’ Techniques to Encourage Interactions <ul><li>Giving own opinions or experiences </li></ul><ul><li>Questioning </li></ul><ul><li>Showing appreciation </li></ul><ul><li>Establishing ground rules </li></ul><ul><li>Suggesting new direction </li></ul><ul><li>Personally inviting contributions from other people </li></ul><ul><li>Summarising </li></ul><ul><li>Hew and Cheung (2008) case study, 24 cases </li></ul>
  16. 16. Learner/Instructor Interactions <ul><li>Several studies found a relationship between learner satisfaction and the Instructor role in CMC (Bolliger & Wasilik 2009; Bower & Kamata 2000; Herbert 2006; Hong 2002) </li></ul><ul><li>Factors: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>sense of availability and connectedness (Shin & Chan 2004) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>quality and timeliness of instruction (Young & Norgard 2006) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>instructor’s expertise and counselling (Paechter, Maier & Macher 2010) </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Learner/Instructor Interactions YES NO Bolliger & Wasilik (2009) survey, 102 Woods (2002) surveys, 40 cases Bower & Kamata (2000) survey, 555 Shin (2003) survey, 506 cases Herbert (2006) survey, 122 cases Hong (2002) case study, 26 cases Shin & Chan (2004) survey, 285 Young & Norgard (2006) survey, 233 Paechter, Maier & Macher (2010) survey, 2196 Bangert (2008) case study, 33 cases
  18. 18. Learner/Instructor Interactions YES NO Wise et al (2004) surveys, 20 cases Kelly, Ponton & Rovai (2007) content analysis, survey, 534 cases Blignaut & Trollip (2003) interviews with instructors & students 18 courses An, Shin & Lim (2009) survey & content analysis, 3 groups, 18/18/20 Dennen, Darabi & Smith (2007) 32 instructors, 170 students Brinkerhoff & Koroghlanian (2005) survey two groups, A: 512, B: 991
  19. 19. Learner/Instructor Interactions <ul><li>Teaching presence combined with social presence produced more high quality cognitive responses from Learners (Bangert 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>Individual teaching practices affect other factors (Blignaut & Trollip 2003) </li></ul><ul><li>Amount of instructor’s interventions may impinge on Learners’ ‘free expression of thoughts and opinions’ (An, Shin & Lim 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Teaching presence affects Learner-perceived learning achievement rather than Learner satisfaction ( Shin 2003 ) </li></ul>
  20. 20. Learner/Instructor Interactions <ul><li>No significant difference regarding satisfaction with overall learning experience or personal relationship with the instructor regardless of the number of personal emails sent to learners (Woods 2002) </li></ul><ul><li>Learners’ satisfaction is affected by the ‘perception that they are treated as individuals and that their interpersonal communication needs are met’ despite instructors’ focus on course content and feedback (Dennen, Darabi and Smith 2007) </li></ul>
  21. 21. Learning/Content Management System <ul><li>Satisfaction with the learner interface may be ‘the most important dimension of the decision to engage’ with the task (Shee & Wang 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>Consistent course design and technical support availability are important for satisfaction (Young & Norgard 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Robustness and usability of LMS, access to learning resources, currency of learning materials, and timetabling important (Gilbert, Morton & Rowley 2007) </li></ul>
  22. 22. Learning/Content Management System YES NO Shee & Wang (2008) surveys, 276 Karatas and Simsek (2009) survey, 60 Young & Norgard (2006) survey, 233 Hong (2002) case study, 26 cases Gilbert, Morton & Rowley (2007) survey, 19 cases Cheon & Grant (2009) survey, content analysis, 41 cases Stokes (2001) survey, 145 cases
  23. 23. Learning/Content Management System <ul><li>Type of interface (web-based, text-based, graphical, and metaphorical) makes no significant difference to learning performance; a metaphorical interface may correlate with an increase in learner attention (Cheon & Grant 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>No significant relationship between the learning system and satisfaction, or the learning system and Learner satisfaction with flexibility of delivery (Karatas and Simsek 2009; see also Hong 2002) </li></ul><ul><li>Most learners expressed satisfaction with CMC regardless of age, grade point average, university classification, major, and experience with Web-based courses (Stokes 2001) </li></ul>
  24. 24. Learners’ Demand for Flexibility <ul><li>Flexibility of online courses (compared to face-to-face) is important for learner satisfaction (Young & Norgard 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Flexibility ‘outweighs the need for instructor and peer interaction when choosing to enrol in an online course’ (Braun 2008) </li></ul>
  25. 25. Factors to Study re Learner Satisfaction
  26. 26. Thank you! [email_address]

×