Construtivismo 2005

Journal of
Educational Technology & Society

Published by International Forum of Educational Technology & Society Endorsed by IEEE Technical Committee on Learning Technology
January 2005 Volume 8 Number 1 ISSN: 1436-4522 (online) ISSN: 1176-3647 (print)
Educational Technology & Society

An International Journal Aims and Scope
Educational Technology & Society is a quarterly journal published in January, April, July and October. Educational Technology & Society seeks academic articles on the issues affecting the developers of educational systems and educators who implement and manage such systems. The articles should discuss the perspectives of both communities and their relation to each other: Educators aim to use technology to enhance individual learning as well as to achieve widespread education and expect the technology to blend with their individual approach to instruction. However, most educators are not fully aware of the benefits that may be obtained by proactively harnessing the available technologies and how they might be able to influence further developments through systematic feedback and suggestions. Educational system developers and artificial intelligence (AI) researchers are sometimes unaware of the needs and requirements of typical teachers, with a possible exception of those in the computer science domain. In transferring the notion of a 'user' from the humancomputer interaction studies and assigning it to the 'student', the educator's role as the 'implementer/ manager/ user' of the technology has been forgotten. The aim of the journal is to help them better understand each other's role in the overall process of education and how they may support each other. The articles should be original, unpublished, and not in consideration for publication elsewhere at the time of submission to Educational Technology & Society and three months thereafter. The scope of the journal is broad. Following list of topics is considered to be within the scope of the journal: Architectures for Educational Technology Systems, Computer-Mediated Communication, Cooperative/ Collaborative Learning and Environments, Cultural Issues in Educational System development, Didactic/ Pedagogical Issues and Teaching/Learning Strategies, Distance Education/Learning, Distance Learning Systems, Distributed Learning Environments, Educational Multimedia, Evaluation, HumanComputer Interface (HCI) Issues, Hypermedia Systems/ Applications, Intelligent Learning/ Tutoring Environments, Interactive Learning Environments, Learning by Doing, Methodologies for Development of Educational Technology Systems, Multimedia Systems/ Applications, Network-Based Learning Environments, Online Education, Simulations for Learning, Web Based Instruction/ Training
Editors
Kinshuk, Massey University, New Zealand; Demetrios G Sampson, University of Piraeus & ITI-CERTH, Greece; Ashok Patel, CAL Research & Software Engineering Centre, UK; Reinhard Oppermann, Fraunhofer Institut Angewandte Informationstechnik, Germany.
Associate editors
Alexandra I. Cristea, Technical University Eindhoven, The Netherlands; John Eklund, Access Australia Co-operative Multimedia Centre, Australia; Vladimir A Fomichov, K. E. Tsiolkovsky Russian State Tech Univ, Russia; Olga S Fomichova, Studio "Culture, Ecology, and Foreign Languages", Russia; Piet Kommers, University of Twente, The Netherlands; Chul-Hwan Lee, Inchon National University of Education, Korea; Brent Muirhead, University of Phoenix Online, USA; Erkki Sutinen, University of Joensuu, Finland; Vladimir Uskov, Bradley University, USA.
Advisory board
Ignacio Aedo, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain; Sherman Alpert, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, USA; Alfred Bork, University of California, Irvine, USA; Rosa Maria Bottino, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy; Mark Bullen, University of British Columbia, Canada; Tak-Wai Chan, National Central University, Taiwan; Nian-Shing Chen, National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan; Darina Dicheva, Winston-Salem State University, USA; Roger Hartley, Leeds University, UK; J R Isaac, National Institute of Information Technology, India; Akihiro Kashihara, The University of Electro-Communications, Japan; Paul Kirschner, Open University of the Netherlands, The Netherlands; Ruddy Lelouche, Universite Laval, Canada; David Merrill, Brigham Young University - Hawaii, USA; Marcelo Milrad, Vxj University, Sweden; Riichiro Mizoguchi, Osaka University, Japan; Hiroaki Ogata, Tokushima University, Japan; Toshio Okamoto, The University of Electro-Communications, Japan; Yoshiaki Shindo, Nippon Institute of Technology, Japan; Brian K. Smith, Pennsylvania State University, USA; J. Michael Spector, Syracuse University, USA.
Assistant Editors
Sheng-Wen Hsieh, National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan; Taiyu Lin, Massey University, New Zealand; Kathleen Luchini, University of Michigan, USA; Pythagoras Karampiperis, University of Piraeus and ITI-CERTH, Greece; Dorota Mularczyk, Independent Researcher & Web Designer; Carmen Padrn Npoles, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain; Ali Fawaz Shareef, Massey University, New Zealand; Jarkko Suhonen, University of Joensuu, Finland.
Executive peer-reviewers
http://www.ifets.info/
Subscription Prices and Ordering Information

Institutions: NZ$ 120 (~ US$ 75) per year (four issues) including postage and handling. Individuals (no school or libraries): NZ$ 100 (~ US$ 50) per year (four issues) including postage and handling. Single issues (individuals only): NZ$ 35 (~ US$ 18) including postage and handling. Subscription orders should be sent to The International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS), c/o Prof. Kinshuk, Information Systems Department, Massey University, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Tel: +64 6 350 5799 ext 2090. Fax: +64 6 350 5725. E-mail: kinshuk@ieee.org.
Advertisements
Educational Technology & Society accepts advertisement of products and services of direct interest and usefulness to the readers of the journal, those involved in education and educational technology. Contact the editors at kinshuk@ieee.org.
Abstracting and Indexing

Educational Technology & Society is abstracted/indexed in Social Science Citation Index, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, ISI Alerting Services, Social Scisearch, ACM Guide to Compg Literature, Australian DEST Register of Refereed Journals, Computing Reviews, DBLP, Educational Administration Abstracts, Educational Research Abstracts, Educational Technology Abstracts, Elsevier Bibliographic Databases, ERIC, Inspec, Technical Education & Training Abstracts, and VOCED.
ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors andthe copyright of the articles. ISSN 1436-4522. International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the forum jointly retain the copyright of themake digital or hard copies of digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or without feeuse is granted withoutare not made or distributed Permission to articles. Permission to make part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted classroom provided that copies fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit and that copies advantage and that copies bear the full Copyrights the components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be for profit or commercial advantage or commercial bear the full citation on the first page. citation on for first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior a honoured. Abstracting be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or specific permission and/or a fee. the editors at kinshuk@massey.ac.nz. at kinshuk@ieee.org. fee. Request permissions from Request permissions from the editors
Guidelines for authors

Submissions are invited in the following categories:
Peer reviewed publications: a) Full length articles (4000 - 7000 words), b) Short articles, Critiques and Case studies (up to 3000 words) Book reviews Software reviews Website reviews
All peer review publications will be refereed in double-blind review process by at least two international reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. Book, Software and Website Reviews will not be reviewed, but the editors reserve the right to refuse or edit review. Each peer review submission should have at least following items: title (up to 10 words), complete communication details of ALL authors , an informative abstract (75-200 words) presenting the main points of the paper and the author's conclusions, four - five descriptive keywords, main body of paper (in 10 point font), conclusion, references. Submissions should be single spaced. Footnotes and endnotes are not accepted, all such information should be included in main text. The paragraphs should not be indented. There should be one line space between consecutive paragraphs. There should be single space between full stop of previous sentence and first word of next sentence in a paragraph. The keywords (just after the abstract) should be separated by comma, and each keyword phrase should have initial caps (for example, Internet based system, Distance learning). Do not use 'underline' to highlight text. Use 'italic' instead.
Headings
Articles should be subdivided into unnumbered sections, using short, meaningful sub-headings. Please use only two level headings as far as possible. Use 'Heading 1' and 'Heading 2' styles of your word processor's template to indicate them. If that is not possible, use 12 point bold for first level headings and 10 point bold for second level heading. If you must use third level headings, use 10 point italic for this purpose. There should be one blank line after each heading and two blank lines before each heading (except when two headings are consecutive, there should be one blank like between them).
Tables
Tables should be included in the text at appropriate places and centered horizontally. Captions (maximum 6 to 8 words each) must be provided for every table (below the table) and must be referenced in the text.
Figures
Figures should be included in the text at appropriate places and centered horizontally. Captions (maximum 6 to 8 words each) must be provided for every figure (below the figure) and must be referenced in the text. The figures must NOT be larger than 500 pixels in width. Please also provide all figures separately (besides embedding them in the text).
References
All references should be listed in alphabetical order at the end of the article under the heading 'References'. All references must be cited in the article using "authors (year)" style e.g. Merrill & Twitchell (1994)
or "(authors1, year1; authors2, year2)" style e.g. (Merrill, 1999; Kommers et al., 1997). Do not use numbering style to cite the reference in the text e.g. "this was done in this way and was found successful [23]." It is important to provide complete information in references. Please follow the patterns below:
Journal article Laszlo, A. & Castro, K. (1995). Technology and values: Interactive learning environments for future generations. Educational Technology, 35 (2), 7-13. Newspaper article Blunkett, D. (1998). Cash for Competence. Times Educational Supplement, July 24, 1998, 15. Or Clark, E. (1999). There'll never be enough bandwidth. Personal Computer World, July 26, 1999, retrieved July 7, 2004, from http://www.vnunet.co.uk/News/88174. Book (authored or edited) Brown, S. & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of Teaching, Buckingham: Open University. Chapter in book/proceedings Malone, T. W. (1984). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. In Walker, D. F. & Hess, R. D. (Eds.), Instructional software: principles and perspectives for design and use, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 68-95. Internet reference Fulton, J. C. (1996). Writing assignment as windows, not walls: enlivening unboundedness through boundaries, retrieved July 7, 2004, from http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/tcc-conf96/fulton.html.
Submission procedure
Authors, submitting articles for a particular special issue, should send their submissions directly to the appropriate Guest Editor. Guest Editors will advise the authors regarding submission procedure for the final version. All submissions should be in electronic form. The editors will acknowledge the receipt of submission as soon as possible. The preferred formats for submission are Word document and RTF, but editors will try their best for other formats too. For figures, GIF and JPEG (JPG) are the preferred formats. Authors must supply separate figures in one of these formats besides embedding in text. Please provide following details with each submission: Author(s) full name(s) including title(s), Name of corresponding author, Job title(s), Organisation(s), Full contact details of ALL authors including email address, postal address, telephone and fax numbers. The submissions should be sent via email to (Subject: Submission for Educational Technology & Society journal): kinshuk@ieee.org. In the email, please state clearly that the manuscript is original material that has not been published, and is not being considered for publication elsewhere.
ii
Journal of Educational Technology & Society

Volume 8 Number 1 2005
Table of contents
Formal discussion summaries Formal online discussions: reflections on process Moderator and Summarizer: Bill Williams 1-7
Full length articles SCBIZHELP: Information System for Linking Students with Real Business Problems Abirami Radhakrishnan, Michael D. Crino, Steve Davis and Levent Camlibel 8-16
Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations Yiasemina Karagiorgi and Loizos Symeou
17-27
Beyond functionality and technocracy: creating human involvement with educational technology Wim Westera
28-37
Understanding Innovation in Education Using Activity Theory Donna L. Russell and Art Schneiderheinze
38-53
Learning with Invisible Others: Perceptions of Online Presence and their Relationship to Cognitive and Affective Learning Tracy Russo and Spencer Benson
54-62
Permanent Injustice: Rawls' Theory of Justice and the Digital Divide Elizabeth Hendrix
63-68
Designer Support for Online Collaboration and Knowledge Construction Hong Gao, Amy L. Baylor and E Shen
69-79
An Educational Development Tool Based on Principles of Formal Ontology Rodolfo Guzzi, Stefano Scarpanti, Giovanni Ballista and Walter Di Nicolantonio
80-89
Experienced and inexperienced Internet users among pre-service teachers: Their use and attitudes toward the Internet Wong Su Luan, Ng Siew Fung, Mokhtar Nawawi and Tang Sai Hong
90-103
Using Information and Communication Technology in Secondary Schools in Nigeria: Problems and Prospects Samuel Ereyi Aduwa-Ogiegbaen and Ede Okhion Sunday Iyamu
104-112
ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). International Forum ofSociety (IFETS). The authors and the forum The authors and the forum jointly retain the 1436-4522. International Forum of Educational Technology & Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). jointly retain the copyright of the articles. copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard work of personal of this work for personal without fee use is granted without not made or distributed Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of thiscopies for part or allor classroom use is grantedor classroom provided that copies arefee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage citation on the first the full citation on the first page. of this work owned by others this IFETS must be for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the fulland that copies bear page. Copyrights for components Copyrights for components of than work owned by others thanAbstracting with honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a honoured. IFETS must be credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request at kinshuk@massey.ac.nz. fee. Request permissions from the editors permissions from the editors at kinshuk@ieee.org.
iii
The Impact of Computer Augmented Online Learning and Assessment Tool Misook Heo and Anthony Chow
113-125
Software reviews EMTeachline Mathematics Software Reviewer: Michael Verhaart 126-131
Book reviews Designing Distributed Learning Environments with Intelligent Software Agents Reviewer: Ian G. Kennedy 132-133
iv
Williams, B. (2005). Formal online discussions: reflections on process. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 1-7.
Formal online discussions: reflections on process

Moderator & Sumamrizer: Bill Williams Setubal Polytechnic, Portugal billwilliams@netvisao.pt Discussion Schedule: Discussion: September 13-22, 2004 Summing-up: September 23-24, 2004
Pre-Discussion Paper Introduction

This paper considers some of the issues and options for formal online discussions in general with a specific focus on moderated discussions as exemplified at IFETS. The IFETS discussion model is, I believe, a powerful one which has been making an important contribution to academic debate and knowledge sharing online since mid-1998. Although there has been intermittent informal discussion about the process itself, I don't believe it has come up for formal discussion over the last few years. Therefore, given the pace of developments in the nature of online communities and the technology which supports them, I think it timely to begin a conversation in IFETS about the process of formal online discussion. I propose five areas for discussion, the first three of which are related to the discussion space whereas the last two are essentially guidelines for their conduct and recording. 1. Hosting the discussion 2. Maintaining archives 3. Preserving privacy 4. Providing guidelines/models for moderators 5. Providing guidelines for citing contributions
1. Hosting the discussion

Current approach The model currently used on IFETS and ITForum is that of a moderated e-mail list using simple text (no formatting, HTML or colour/shading possible) and messages are stored in list archives.
Limitations The use of simple text email messages tends to limit the length of each contribution. Long texts in this format make difficult reading in themselves and it can be difficult to perceive the context of particular contributions in ongoing discussion. Another consequence is that it is difficult for discussion participants to weave various contributions into their message so as to replicate the kind of multi-participant discussion which can occur in a face to face round-table discussion for example. Those who have worked with collaborative workspaces like FirstClass are likely to have experience of the value of this type of visual weaving operating in text-message-based discussion. Traditionally these limitations have been worked around by the discussion moderator attempting to set out the issues involved in discrete chunks or topics, requesting participants to use the subject header to indicate which of these they are addressing and hoping that others will likewise respect the subject header convention so as to provide a clear and easily followed thread of messages. It also falls to the moderator to attempt to pull the
1
ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@ieee.org.
various separate contributions together at intervals throughout a formal discussion so as to make it easier to see the development and flow of discussion around each of the issues being addressed. Another arguable drawback of unformatted text messages is that they are aesthetically rather basic when compared with webpages, blogs or journals. In addition to the limitations of simple text messages outlined above, we also need to consider the problems arising out of the use of email itself as a discussion medium spam, filters, volume and unpredictable taxonomy of messages. Many people may find themselves in agreement with Eric Hahns assessment at the 2004 Inbox email technology conference that e-mail is broken (Asarvala 2004). He reminds us that the file/folder metaphor was designed almost 30 years ago when it was anticipated that users would receive around 5 e-mail messages per day. Is it time, then, to reconsider the options for our formal online discussions?
Discussion space characteristics

I would propose the following as a possible list of general features for the system of choice:
Essential features Facilitate in-depth discussion Push communication Archiving facility Portability (no vendor lock-in) No/low cost
Desirable features No client installation (to avoid large download; problems with institutional IT staff) Aesthetically pleasing interface Participant profiles
Discussion space options

Given the limitations of basic email-based systems, what are the other options which might be considered? One possibility would be to use a collaborative workspace (e.g.Webcrossing, Groove). An alternative would be to move to some kind of web-based system.
Option 1 - Collaborative Workspaces The relative merits of Email and Collaborative Workspaces have been cogently summarised by Michael Sampson (2004) as follows: Email. Strengths are universal addressability, universal interoperability, and cross-organization functionality, offset by weaknesses of a disconnect between its design and current usage pattern, a deluge of spam, and a lack of immediacy, among others. Collaborative Workspaces. Strengths are the provision of a set of structured tools for group work, enforced group memory, and shared content taxonomy, with weaknesses of poor cross-platform support, lack of cross-product interoperability, and poor cross-enterprise capabilities. These systems allow for more a organised and visually pleasing discussion space and provide good archiving. The drawbacks include the fact that they usually involve each participant having to install client software and that one is usually locked into a particular software environment (commercial or open source) which may be
2
difficult to integrate with other applications or to migrate from at a future date. Technical support can also be an issue. Groove is an example of a commercial workspace which has been exciting interest recently although Martin Terre Blanches recent comments (2004) illustrate possible drawbacks of its use for our purposes. It is also possible that the open-source Sakai consortium may come up with interesting developments in this field in the near future.
Option 2 - Web-based systems A general objection to moving from email to web-based systems has to do with the fact that the former is a push whereas the latter is a pull process and experience suggests that push results in more participation. So any webbased solution would need to incorporate a push component to notify participants of new comments and contributions. Such a system could involve some sort of web-based document + comments approach whereby the context of each contribution can be seen linked to the original pre-discussion document and in a thread with others addressing the same point. This was suggested by Ben Hyde and maintained as a sort of informal parallel track during the IFETS discussion on Participation in Online Learning earlier this year (30 Jan 13 Feb 2003); the tool used in this case was d3E Ubiquitous which has been used by JIME and others to promote academic debate. Although most of the participants in our discussion preferred to stick with the simple e-mail model there were a number who opted to use the d3e tool and the result can be seen at http://ud3e.open.ac.uk/d3e_discussion.php?url=ifets.ieee.org%2Fdiscussions%2Fdiscuss_january2004.html&f=7 62. In this particular case the push element was provided by Ben Hyde forwarding a digest of the web-based comments to the e-mail list. Commkit is an example of a commercial social software package which integrates web and e-mail discussion and allows community members to choose on a topic by topic basis whether to participate by web or e-mail. Using either d3E or Commkit we continue to have to deal with the inherent flaws of e-mail. This could be resolved by using RSS rather than e-mail to notify participants of new contributions and give a brief taster of their contents. Participants would need to install an RSS aggregator on their desktop to receive this or it could be received within MS Outlook but separate from e-mail messages (Newsgator, for example, is a commercial application which runs in MS Outlook). As the potential of RSS for this and other functions becomes apparent it is likely that its applications will be considerably expanded in the open-source sphere and this could mean that web-based systems become more attractive in the near future.
Option 3 - E-mail A third, and less radical, option would be to continue with the message-list approach but use a more sophisticated e-mail based tool which would allow formatting and hyperlinking. The expansion of Yahoo Groups and arrival of Google Groups suggest that there may still be potential in this model. It is a question of balancing the simplicity and universality of this medium against its inherent limitations. Incidentally, the University of Strathclyde has been working on an interesting method of visually representing the growth of discussions (Mohamed et al, 2004) . This was originally designed to work with bulletin board discussion and could conceivably be adapted for any one of the hosting options we have been considering here.
2 Maintaining archives
Essential features messages stored chronologically search facility
3
threading of messages
Desirable features view formal discussion contributions in context of pre-discussion document various viewing options (e.g. tree-view, titles, first paragraph) hide quoted text option (this feature and the previous one are found in the beta version of the new Google Groups e.g. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.org.nonprofit )
Decisions regarding this aspect, and the following one, are very much dependent on the outcome of any decision regarding changes in hosting. I do think it worth mentioning that I have very rarely found mention of earlier IFETS contributions in the current discussions and, knowing the quality of earlier work, I would conclude that this is a result of access and consulting issues in our archiving system. The present IFETs archives (http://ifets.ieee.org/archive.html ) are not particularly user-friendly in that it is not very easy to search for particular messages or topics. The interface employed for the IT Forum archives appears to be more flexible and accessible (http://www.listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=itforum ).
3. Preserving privacy
The main problems are those inherent in email discussions i.e. list-enabled spamming. One measure employed to avoid inappropriate behaviour is to get list subscribers/participants sign a code of behaviour before admission. This is the policy at e-democracy.org (2004) for example . A rather charming example of a list charter is that of the rabbit lovers list, NetBunny (Nevel 1998). The international nature of groups such as this one does complicate things and I suspect that signing up to a code of behaviour may not help in curbing inappropriate use of addresses harvested from the list. The first reaction to this kind of behaviour will often be a private cease-and-desist message from the group moderator and if this does not work the next recourse may be contacting the perpetrators ISP. However if the person is based outside N. America or W. Europe this is unlikely to achieve very much and even in these areas the negative activity may not be clearly illegal (e.g. mailing unsolicited CVs or marketing of commercial products). Spam posts to the list itself have not represented a problem as such at IFETS because all messages are monitored before publication to avoid this. This does involve, however, a rather thankless investment of time by the list coordinators as well as introducing delays in posting and ideally it would be better if the system was self regulating in this respect.
4. Providing guidelines/models for moderators

Although I am not aware of any formal guidelines for moderators here on IFETS, my observation of formal discussions over the last four years has led me to conclude that most moderators take a role somewhere between what we might call the moderator-participants model and the moderated participant-participant model. In the former the moderator, having been responsible for setting out the pre-discussion paper, tends to respond to each contribution as it comes in and is relatively centre-stage (much like role of the teacher in more traditional classrooms). In the latter the moderator keeps a low profile once the discussion is underway and concentrates on summarising contributions (more of a facilitation role). I know where my own preferences lie on this and would be interested to hear comments or observations from others.
5. Providing guidelines for citing contributions

Within IFETS it has become (informal) practice to mention contributors to discussion by name in the moderators summary but there may be a case for more specific guidelines on this. My late colleague Sally Mavor (2002) set out the issues rather well in a contribution to a discussion here in August 2002 which is worth quoting in full:
4
In the IFETS discussion paper, the moderator and summariser(s) are the lead authors of the paper, but the final published paper integrates the thoughts and contributions of those who participated in the discussion. In that sense, is the authorship of the paper still solely that of the moderator/summariser(s)? Or does the paper become a collaborative effort with joint authorship? Or is the paper authored by the same moderator/summarisers with clear citations of the contributions made by members? I tend towards the latter especially considering the amount of work involve in writing the prediscussion paper, in moderating the discussion and in integrating the contributions of the members in a final document. However, at the moment IFETS doesnt appear to have a clear policy regarding how members contributions should be recognised/integrated in the final, published discussion paper. (I have looked but am prepared to stand corrected, if I have missed anything!) Having also looked briefly at past discussion papers, there seem to be a wide range of approaches to the final paper from no mention of discussion contributions, to meticulous naming and citing in a post-discussion summary. The reason I bring this to light is that in one of the last discussions, I, among others, contributed to the discussion. As it happens, I coined the term contextualised flexibility to account for the kind of understanding of context and appropriate response to that context which is important for course design. The author of the paper kindly mentioned this phrase, saying that One contributor used the term contextualised flexibility to describe how overall course design should be sensitive to contexts and adaptive Now, with my tongue firmly and friendlily- in-cheek, if I wish to use that phrase in another paper, how should I refer to it? It has now been published in the Education, Technology and Society (ETS) journal. So should I say contextualised flexibility (a contributor, cited in ETS discussion paper no. vol. etc.. who happened to be me)? ;-) And what about the other contributors, who in fact, contributed much more than I did and were not mentioned by name? This paper is by no means the only one that uses this approach, so it is quite legitimately following precedents and is even integrating the discussion contributions more than some previous papers. Obviously the summarisers must be also be selective and concise in their summaries, but, my question is: when the moderator/summariser(s) use the work of members contributions to the discussion should the names of these contributors not be mentioned in the final, published paper? On no account would I advocate a homogenisation of approach, but I do feel that some guidelines as to appropriate ways to integrate members contribution to the discussion would be helpful and consistent with the collaborative nature of the discussion paper.
Closing remarks
I have tried to set out above what I think are the main areas where it could be useful to share our experience and thoughts on the process of formal online discussions as exemplified at IFETS and will conclude by saying that I look forward to seeing your contributions so that we can clarify our ideas and perhaps achieve some consensus regarding the following four questions: 1. What are the ideal specifications of a system for hosting and arquiving formal online discussions? 2. Is there a case for moving away from the e-mail list-serve model? 3. If the answer to 2 is yes, what would be the best alternative? 4. Is there a need for guidelines relating to the role of moderator and to citing contributions in formal online discussions?
References
Asaravala (2004). The changing face of e-mail. Wired News, retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,63692,00.html.
5
E-democracy (2004). E-democracy Forum rules Interim, retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://www.edemocracy.org/center/draftrules.html. Mohamed, R., Ferguson, J. D., Mac Cormick, A., & Elsweiler, D. (2004). Developing Bulletin Board Visualisations. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on Web Based Communities 2004, 11-18, retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/~rehman/mowbc2004.pdf. Mavor, S. (2002). Discussion paper citation practices, retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://ifets.ieee.org/past_archives/archiv_080201_270203/0995.html. Nevel, S. B. (1998). PetBunny Charter, retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://www.petbunny.net/petbunny/charter.htm. Sampson, M. (2004). Collaboration Software Clients: Email, IM, Presence, RSS & Collaborative Workspaces Should Be Integrated for Business Communication, retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://sharedspaces.typepad.com/blog/2004/08/shared_spaces_b_13.html. Blanche, M. T. (2004), Goodbye Groove, retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://www.criticalmethods.org/collab/2004/8/news.htm#1091431419980.
Post-discussion summary Discussion space options

The overall conclusion we could perhaps draw from the discussion is that at this stage there is no strongly-felt need to move to another system to host IFETS discussions. Suzanne Aurlio comments that at present, I can't see a strong enough case for another system; I do see one for elaborating on this one. and Stephen Downess concern that "any transition to a web based system must be done carefully, as it is more often than not the kiss of death for a forum. is probably widely shared. The web-based alternative proposed by Rick Dilman, Discus (http://www.discusware.com), has a number of attractive aspects and may well be ideal in other contexts but, although helping to meet Christopher Eliots criterion that participants should be able to choose any format they feel comfortable with, among as many possibilities as can be supported, being commercial probably rules it out as the system of choice for IFETS itself.
Guidelines for moderation and citation

Brent Muirhead, Christopher Eliot and Mark Nichols all refer to the importance of appropriate citation of individual contributions. For Brent, this is a basic professional courtesy. Christopher points out there is no accepted syntax to use for citation of online discussions and suggests making an example of a suggested format available. Mark is in general agreement about a need for guidelines but also expresses his ambivalence in that I am comfortable with the status quo as it gives the listserv the feel somewhat of a casual association of professionals and he puts forward two of his own post-discussion summaries as contrasting examples of how to go about this. They illustrate the point very well and I think, rather than set out guidelines, we could use the second of Marks summaries as a model to guide future moderators. Citation ethics are an area of concern to various participants in cases where material posted on a discussion forum such as this is then reposted in other contexts like blogs or other discussion forums without the permission of the original poster. Although Christopher Eliot believes that discussion forums are essentially public spaces and we certainly don't want any ethical standard that could be used to suppress criticism or debate, Gwynneth Jansen suggests that not having a clear position on this may result in an unintended backlash of people not putting their thoughts into email discussions as they fear being taken out of context and Beverly Trayner argues that such reposting is not only ethically questionable but can be misleading because citing something out of its context (e.g. from a discussion group to a blog) and to a different audience gives it a different meaning.
6
I think that the distinction proposed by Gabriela Avram is useful here, when she distinguishes between: public spaces like journals, web pages and blogs (permission not needed for quotation but usual citation code applies (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/cgos/idx_basic.html for example); and forums which are semi-private spaces and so permission should be sought before quoting directly from them. An additional point was raised by Geoffrey Cain concerning use in discussion groups of uncredited material such as definitions taken directly from other sources. Corrie Bergeron says that I'd certainly expect the definitions to be cited in the final paper. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to be cited in an informal post but this brings us back to Sally Mavors point mentioned in the pre-discussion paper: the discussion moderator should credit new ideas or terminology to discussion participants in the final published summary (as I have done above with Gabrielas reference to semi-private spaces) but this assumes that these are either original or appropriately cited. I believe there is a case for defining more clearly the ground-rules for citation both in and from forums such as this. This could be made clear by having a code of conduct to sign before access to discussions. My thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion and I hope that the points raised here may help us in our ongoing encounters with learning and with what Beverly refers to as the the subtle but complex things we do to improve social relationships.
Radhakrishnan, A., Crino, M. D., Davis, S., & Camlibel, L. (2005). SCBIZHELP: Information System for Linking
Students with Real Business Problems. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 8-16.
SCBIZHELP: Information System for Linking Students with Real Business Problems
Abirami Radhakrishnan, Michael D. Crino and Steve Davis
Clemson University, Department of Management 101 Sirrine Hall, P.O. Box 34-1305, Clemson, SC, 29634, USA aradhak@clemson.edu crino@clemson.edu davis@clemson.edu
Levent Camlibel
Clemson University, Department of Economics 222 Sirrine Hall, Clemson, SC, 29634, USA koroglu2000@hotmail.com
Abstract
Academic institutions have come to recognize the value of involving business students in solving real business problems, but most lack a way to systematically and reliably bring the needs of the business community and the resources of the academic community together. Responding to this need, a Web site was developed to promote linking students with real business problems. It has helped identify projects in various functional areas that aided businesses and enhanced student learning. It is capable of supporting multiple universities within the state and across multiple states. Currently, business representatives can search for student expertise. A future version will also allow business users to post their needs to the Web site.
Keywords
Web based system, Inter-organizational alliance, Databases, Electronic channel
Introduction
Importance of academia industry linkage Throughout the1990s, students, parents, employers and the government criticized business schools for the limited effectiveness of their instructional methodologies and the consequent inexperience of their graduates in dealing with real-world business problems. At the root of these criticisms was the perception that academic institutions were not engaged with the surrounding business community. The main criticism was that academicians were simply imparting knowledge to students, without sufficient regard to its application or relevance (Richter, 1999; Kellogg Commission Report, 2001). Changes have resulted from this criticism, including the American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business (American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business, 1998) revising its reaccredidation guidelines to emphasize the value of integrating real business problem solving into the curriculum (Blum, 1991; Ahire, 2001; Mc Keachie, 2002). One way of integrating real world business problem solving into the curriculum is by students undertaking projects that address problems faced by industry. Students retain concepts they learn when they apply them to solve real problems. Learning by doing, or experiential learning, deservedly enjoys wide popularity as a learning style (Fellers, 1996; Levasseur, 1996; Nilson, 1998; McKeachie, 2002). Projects force students to deal with the inevitable trade-offs, conflicting business goals, data management problems and the myriad of other issues found in the messy real world (Grossman Jr., 2002). Student projects benefit faculty teaching and research. Teaching improves because projects provide faculty with clear, useful feedback about what students have learned (Grossman Jr., 2002). Faculty members receive feedback from observing student performance during project presentations, informal conversations, business client statements, and written reports. Student projects also provide faculty with opportunities for applied research, including case studies (Grossman Jr., 2002), and pre/post intervention comparisons (Applegate, 1999; Benbasat & Zmud, 1999; Davenport & Markus, 1999; Lee et al., 1995; Barman et al., 2001). Student projects addressing real world business problems benefit industry, especially small businesses and nonprofit organizations that have far fewer resources than large businesses (SBA Office of Advocacy Office of
Economic Research, 2004; U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy Report, 2004). Often they lack the expertise, and rarely can they afford the fees of professional consultants.
Problems faced in establishing academia industry linkage Educational institutions have developed different strategies to set up an academia industry link. Many universities ask their final year students to find suitable industry projects, but, this is a difficult and time consuming task. For example, MBA students in Ahires (2001) operations management class searched for projects by making cold calls on local firms. At some universities, faculty members take responsibility for identifying suitable industry projects for their students. But making useful contacts in the business community and finding meaningful projects on a continuing basis is often easier said than done. For example, Kock et al. (2003) mention the tremendous efforts required by faculty at Temple University to find suitable student projects at Day and Zimmermann Inc. Generally, academic institutions have not structured or organized themselves in a way that would encourage or facilitate the provision of student and faculty expertise to the business community (Kellogg Commission Report, 2001). Similarly, businesses find communicating with faculty or finding expertise on a university campus daunting if not impossible (Murphy, 2002). Simply put, for a number of reasons universities represent a largely untapped source of business and community assistance. A review of the literature (Table 1) reveals many publications that discuss initiatives taken by individual faculty (Weal, 1991; Bennet and MacFarlane, 1992; Wouters and van Donselaar, 2000; Ahire, 2001; Grossman Jr., 2002; Kock et al., 2003), or relationships between a large corporation and a top-tier university (Mead et al., 1999; Martin-Vega et al., 2002). Many of these initiatives are restricted to a specific functional area of business or are just one time efforts to link academia to industry. There is a need to find a way to bring together the business and local communities with the resources of universities is a sustained long-term manner. There has been little research on this issue, yet there is significant potential for benefits for all parties. In this paper, we describe an effort by the Alliance for Small Businesses and Nonprofit Organizations in South Carolina to initiate academia industry linkage. This remainder of this paper is organized in four major sections that describe: the Alliance; the new information system created to facilitate a sustained academiaindustry linkage; the impact of this approach on the students, faculty, and community; and finally, conclusions highlighting the limitations of the present system and future plans.
Study by Weal (1991)
Bennet and MacFarlane (1992) Wouters and van Donselaar (2000).
Grossman (2002)
Table 1. Literature on initiatives to promote academia industry linkage Focus of the study Strengths of the initiative Limitations of the initiative An initiative between 1) Twelve month project work. 1) Involved only undergraduate a university and a 2) Company financed student students. company in project work. 2) Limited to Operations Swinburne. 3) Company reported benefits. Research projects. 3) Only a one time initiative. Department-level Company funded student work. 1) Very short duration project. internship program at 2) Limited to Operations Strathclyde University. Research. An initiative between 1) A part of Masters thesis work. 1) Only a one- time initiative. a university and three 2) Companies financed student 2) No systematic mechanism to companies to improve work. link students with industry supply chain 3) Companies reported benefits. projects. operations. Involved 15 students and 7 Professors. Experiences of faculty 1) Involved nearly 500 students. 1) Only a one-time initiative assigning Operations 2) Improved student learning. 2) Students had to identify Research / 3) Provided faculty clear feedback their own projects and faculty Management Science about students capabilities. only helped them while doing projects to their projects. undergraduate and MBA students. National Foundation Science funded 1) Funding from NSF. 2) Involved multiple projects. No support identification for of faculty industry
9
Martin Vega et al. (2002)
program for academic liaison with industry. Ahire (2002) Operations management projects at the Indiana University, USA.
2) Produced results valuable to industry. 1) Involved over 70 projects. 2) Reported benefits participating MBA students.
projects.
to
Meed et (2003)
al.
Kock et (2003)
al.
Survey of formal industry / university collaborations in the field of software engineering. Online IT course that facilitated university industry linkage.
Reported benefits of fourteen formal collaborations between industry / US universities in the field of software engineering. Students applied concepts of IT design and development to real industry problems.
1) Identifying many projects required students to make cold calls on local firms. 2) Only a one-time initiative. 3) Restricted to operations management projects. 1) No aids for identifying projects 2) Limited to software engineering. 1) Only a one time initiative 2) Limited to IT projects.
Alliance Motivated Academia Industry Linkage

The formation of the Alliance for Small Businesses and Nonprofit Organizations in South Carolina motivated the development of our linkage system. With a goal to establish bridges between the academic and business communities, the Alliance for Small Businesses and Nonprofits was formed in 2001 as a union of: the Business Councils of South Carolina (that includes small businesses, and representatives from six public and private universities), the Greenville County Library System, SCORE (counselors to Americas small business), the Small Business Development Center of South Carolina, and the South Carolina Center for Grassroots and Nonprofit Leadership. In its commitment to small businesses, the Alliance addresses most of the businesses in the state of South Carolina. Of the 89,300 full-time business firms with employees in South Carolina, 97 percent are small businesses (independent businesses with fewer than 500 workers). In addition to these businesses, there are 117,112 full-time self-employed persons in South Carolina (U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy Report, 2004). Likewise, the purview of the Alliance includes many of the students in the state, including those at two of the larger state universities, technical schools and private colleges and universities.
Database End User
W E B P A G E S Active
System Administrator
Management Software
Contributor
Dormant SERVER PC
PC
Figure 1. Components of SCBIZHELP
10
To help match student resources with business needs, as well as to facilitate sharing of various resources among its members, the Alliance used grants from the Kellogg Foundation through Alliance 2020 and the School of Business and Leadership at Clemson University to support development of a Web site nicknamed SCBIZHELP (South Carolina business help), www.scbizhelp.org. This Web site provides continuous internet access to Alliance resources by the business community.
SCBIZHELP: Information System to Facilitate Academia Industry Linkage

Design SCBIZHELP has two major components. The Web-based component includes Web pages linked to a database (Figure 1). The management software component permits the system administrator to control data validity. SCBIZHELP accommodates both assistance seekers (end-users) and assistance contributors. Generally university faculty are contributors. Business representatives could play both the roles of end-user, e.g. to seek student project assistance, and contributor, e.g. to sponsor an internship, to offer a plant tour, or offer to speak to a class.
Data entry and validation A contributor is identified simply by an email address. Therefore, one may enter or modify information without having to remember a password. When any new contributor enters information into the system, or when any previously entered information is changed, that information is initially dormant (not viewable). The system automatically sends email messages to a pre-designated representative of the contributors institution and to the system administrator (as an alert that a response should be forthcoming from the institution representative). The representative of the contributors institution notifies the system administrator whether the new information is valid. If valid, the system administrator changes the status from dormant to active.
Information retrieval Business users can search for expertise by selecting keywords from multiple categories. For example, current categories include e-commerce, finance, marketing, human resources management, improving operations, logistics, and business research. After a user selects keywords, the system retrieves and displays brief summaries of project capabilities from the database (Table 2).
Contact Charlie Emery
Table 2. Example project summary Project Details Project name: Business Student Projects Institution: Lander University Keywords: Family-owned Business, Marketing Research, Strategic Planning, Total Quality Management Project: Students will work on faculty-approved projects in the business community as part of their assigned coursework under the supervision of business faculty. However, these projects must be successfully completed within one semester. Projects will be associated with specific courses. Not all courses will be offered each semester. Consequently, there may be times when a class of students will not be available for projects.
The user can click on a project summary to see complete information that generally includes: contact information, willingness to undertake projects and consulting services, compensation requirements (if any), project capabilities, duration of project capabilities, and constraints (such as place where project work must be performed).
11
Software designed for maintainability and scalability The software used for SCBIZHELP was designed for maintainability with separate tiers for the user interface, business rules, and database interaction. Dividing the system into tiers allows for changes in one part with few side effects in the other parts (Sadoski & Comella-Dorda, 2000). For example, it allows changing the underlying database management system without requiring any significant changes to the rest of the application. Because this project followed an incremental development method (Sharrell and Chen, 2001; Avison and Fitzgerald, 2003) and requirements evolved gradually, such flexibility was important. We developed the current Web application using Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003 with a Microsoft Access database. This simple database is sufficient at this point, as it is unlikely that large numbers of users will simultaneously access the system. Nevertheless we have designed the software for easy migration to a more robust database management system should it become necessary. For example, a change would require only minor modifications to data access routines that are isolated in one module. For the system administrator we built a Visual Basic application that runs on the administrators desktop computer and communicates in XML over the Internet with the database that resides on a Web server. We designed the system for scalability in terms of workload on administrators as well as increase in simultaneous Web traffic. The system requires little administration because the various categories of users are responsible for posting and maintaining material. The administrator does not have to monitor system activity on a daily basis because the information need not be real time. Managing a system that serves several universities in a state may require less than an hour a week. The Web site was designed for efficiency of user interaction, including conservative use of graphics to reduce time to download Web pages.
Special features To the best of our knowledge this is the first site of its kind available to the business community. There is a somewhat similar Web site available in New York City (http://www2.nypl.org/smallbiz/programs/index.html) that links universities to the business community but it differs from ours in a number of ways. The contact information does not contain live email links. The information is not available in a report form that can be emailed. There is no provision for those who cannot use the Web site or those who are not Internet connected. University postings do not offer specific student resources but instead indicate which academic programs could provide course content bearing on the topics being searched. We do not know of any other system that offers direct contact with professors and students, and allows professors from multiple universities to enter data on their courses at their convenience, in their own words, using a Web interface. Data entry is flexible. For example, time limits can be placed on a project to correspond with a semester. The entry will automatically expire at the ending date specified by the faculty member, but he or she can easily reactivate it later without re-keying. A professor may create new keywords or categories as necessary to describe a project. Small business and nonprofit managers also may contact the Greenville County Library Systems Reference Department. Library staff will conduct a search on behalf of a user and send the results by regular mail, email (an option is available at the Web site to send the search results directly to an email address) or fax. This lowtech service benefits small business users lacking Web access or computer literacy. Members of the Alliance will also run inquiries for users that request this service over the phone. This Web site could involve students in multiple projects across very different classes and in multiple academic years, providing the potential for a far richer context of project work than one course or one project for final year students. The system not only helps to set up student projects addressing industry problems but also helps arrange industry support for education. Industry users can volunteer to become involved in classes and other activities of the universities listed in the database. We know of no other similar system having a reliable procedure for validating information posted to the Web.
12
Benefits of SCBIZHELP
Academia-industry linkage SCBIZHELP has helped link students with a number of industry needs, in the areas of Management Information Systems, E-Commerce, Operations Management, and Human Resources Management (Table 3). These projects provided students an opportunity to apply concepts and techniques they had learned in the classroom.
Organization SENIOR Solutions SENIOR Solutions Big Brothers and Big Sisters Piedmont Home Textiles Piedmont Home Textiles Piedmont Home Textiles Piedmont Home Textiles Carolina Circuits Inc. Park Place Inc. West Point Stevens Inc. Greenville County Library System Park Place Inc. Park Place Inc. Anderson Restaurant Group Anderson Restaurant Group Anderson Restaurant Group Anderson Restaurant Group Anderson Restaurant Group
Table 3. Examples of student projects Purpose of project Designed database design for volunteer management and meal delivery Designed and implemented a Web site Built database to track match ups between the brothers and sisters Conducted feasibility study for adoption of a pull system Analyzed warehouse management procedures Identified bottleneck areas inside the plants and applied Theory of Constraints Developed incentive pay plan Identified areas for quality management and continuous improvement Supported ISO certification process Identified opportunities to apply lean manufacturing and continuous improvement Developed job documentation Developed job documentation Assisted performance appraisals Conducted area wage surveys Revised employee manual Produced management policies and procedures manual for the corporation Conducted marketing study on new advertisement media for their new restaurants Conducted marketing study for an additional restaurant
Students worked on projects in various functional areas of business. In the Operations Management area, several projects were conducted in evaluation of existing manufacturing planning and control systems, quality audits, lean manufacturing, flow analysis and identification and removal of bottleneck in operations. For example, in the warehouse management project students first identified the root causes of problems using the fish bone technique. They applied optimization techniques to the problems considering the set of constraints in the warehouse facility. After a feasibility study they developed recommendations for allocating floor space during the peak / lean seasons, changing the packaging mix, stocking methods for normal orders and special orders (using well established methods for stocking and tracking), and handling variability in arrival of carriers. In the MIS area, students used the System Development Life Cycle approach to design databases and develop Web based applications for service organizations. For example in the database and Web page design projects for SENIOR Solutions, they were involved from the start of the project (eliciting user requirements) to system implementation using ASP.NET. In the human resources management area, students were involved in projects on job documentation and performance appraisal systems. For example in the job documentation project at Park Place, students created templates for job documentation (job description and specifications), in consultation with management. Templates included corporate logos and format consistent across jobs and with federal laws. Job incumbents and supervisors were interviewed and new job documentation was created and approved for 35 jobs.
Impact on students We interviewed participating faculty about the quality of student projects in several functional areas of business and about the impact on student learning outcomes. Several professors indicated students were motivated to participate in these projects because they knew their work would be useful to industry and because they could
13
meet and work with practicing managers in industry. They were able to address messy real world problems that helped them hone their skills.
Impact on faculty Faculty indicated SCBIZHELP has increased the number of projects addressing real industry problems and identified new opportunities for future projects that would not otherwise have come to their attention. They said SCBIZHELP has reduced the time and effort to arrange student projects addressing real industry problems. Also, they opined these projects helped reinforce concepts covered in their courses. For example, one MIS Professor said SCBIZHELP made possible innovative student projects that involved the community and she intends to continue to use this system to help create worthwhile projects that make teaching more effective.
Impact on business Involved business managers have cited benefits. For example, the supervisor of the implementation of the incentive pay plan at Piedmont Home Textiles, said, The incentive payment plan student project alone resulted in a cost saving of $500,000 for the company and it was a laudable achievement. The company had so much confidence in the student projects that it allowed students to undertake many more projects. The comptroller said the student projects were tremendously beneficial to his company. Carolina Circuits Inc. implemented some of students suggestions from their quality audits. It reconfigured the business processes so as to improve process capability. One team of students documented 165 jobs in several organizations thereby helping them save over $5,000.
Impact on community The Alliance for Small Businesses and Nonprofits made SCBIZHELP a central part of its application for an InnoVision Community Service Award. The Alliances application was reviewed by an outside panel and was among the three finalists for the community service award in 2003. Founded in 1999 by Deloitte & Touche, this award is dedicated to the advancement of technology in education and communication.
Conclusions
Since December 2003 users have accessed the Web site 1327 times and it has facilitated academia industry linkage. User experience suggested some recent enhancements. Formerly the system did not allow an open search. Instead the user had to choose keywords already in the database. This restriction was intended to ensure that someone using the search feature would not come up empty handed. However an open search function is commonly available on Web sites and many users expect it. So we included a free search capability in the current version. In the event that a user finds no available assistance in the database, whether using the free search capability or not, he or she will be prompted by the Web site to send an email inquiry to the system administrator. The system administrator will then solicit this previously unavailable assistance from the network of faculty and nonprofit organizations and correspond directly with the user. These revisions make the system easier to use, better aligned with user expectations, and more flexible, thereby increasing its usefulness to the end user. Formerly there was no way for business users to post their needs to the Web site but we added this feature. Success of the system depends upon support of faculty and cooperation of other organizations such as the library system and the South Carolina Small Business Development Centers. Enlisting this support requires substantial effort and generally requires personal contact. Members of the Alliance plan to distribute this system to several organizations in South Carolina and later extend it nationwide. Although technically a single instance of the system could support the entire nation, system
14
management (including the assurance of information integrity) would be more practical if each system installation covered a smaller region.
References
Ahire, S. L. (2001). Linking operations management students directly to the real world. Interfaces, 31 (5), 104120. Applegate, L. M. (1999). Rigor and relevance in MIS research introduction. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 1-2. American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (1998). Survey finds corporate / collegiate alliances continue to grow, retrieved October 15, 2003 from http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/printnewsline/NL1998/sualliance.asp. Avison, D. E., & Fitzgerald, G. (2003). Where now for development methodologies? Communications of ACM, 46 (1), 78-82. Barman, S., Hanna, M. D., & LaForge, R. L. (2001). Perceived relevance and quality of POM journals: A decade later. Journal of Operations Management, 19 (3), 367-385. Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R.W. (1999). Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 3-16. Bennet, P., & MacFarlane, J. (1992). Sampling the OR world: The Strathclyde apprenticeship scheme. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43 (10), 933-944. Blum, D. E. (1991). Business schools rush to revise curricula in response to critics and competition. Chronicle of Higher Education, December 4, A23-A28. Davenport, T. H., & Markus, L. M. (1999). Rigor vs. relevance revisited: Response to Benbasat & Zmud. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 19-24. Fellers, J. W. (1996). People skills: Using the cooperative learning model to teach students people skills. Interfaces, 26 (5), 42-49. Grossman Jr., T. A. (2002). Student consulting projects benefit faculty and industry. Interfaces, 32 (2), 42-48. Kellogg Commission Report (2001). Returning to our roots: Executive summaries of the reports of the Kellogg Commission on the future of state and land-grant universities, retrieved December 22, 2004 from http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Kellogg/execsum.pdf. Kock, N., Auspitz, C., & King, B. (2003). Web-supported course partnerships: Bringing industry and academia together. Communications of the ACM, 46 (9), 179-183. Lee, A. S. (1989). A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly, 13 (1), 33-50. Lee, D. M. S., Trauth, E. M., & Farwell, D. (1995). Critical skills and knowledge requirements of IS professionals: A joint academic - industry investigation. MIS Quarterly, 19 (3), 313-340. Levasseur, R. E. (1996). People skills: Launching a cooperative learning team. Interfaces, 26 (6), 112-116. Martin-Vega, L. A., Seiford, L. M., & Senich, D. (2002). GOALI: A National Science Foundation university industry liaison program. Interfaces, 32 (2), 56-62. McKeachie, W. J. (2002). Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers (11th Ed.), Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
15
Mead, N., Beckman, K., Lawrence, J., Mary, G. O., Parish, C., Unpingco, P., & Walker, H. (1999). Industry/university collaborations: Different perspectives heighten mutual opportunities. The Journal of Systems and Software, 49, 155-162. Murphy, F. H. (2002). Special section: Linking academia with real - world practice: Several approaches. Interfaces, 32 (2), 41. Nilson, L. B. (1998). Teaching At Its Best: A Research- Based Resource for College Instructors, Boston: Anker Publishing. Richter, A. (1999). Silicon island, wired but under populated. New York Times, November 7, Section 14LI, 1. Sadoski, D., & Comella-Dorda, S. (2000). Three Tier Software Architectures, retrieved December 20, 2002 from http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/descriptions/threetier_body.html. Sherrell, L. B., & Chen, L. (2001). The W life cycle model and associated methodology for corporate Web site development. Communications of AIS, 5 (7), 2-38. SBA Office of Advocacy Office of Economic Research (2004). Research Publication 2002-2003, retrieved December 11, 2004 from http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/res_pub03.pdf. U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy Report (2004). 2004 Small Business Profile: South Carolina, retrieved December 11, 2004 from http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/profiles/04sc.pdf. Weal, S. E. (1991). Practical OR for undergraduates in the Swinburne course. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 42 (12), 1047-1059. Wouters, M. J. F., & van Donselaar, K. H. (2000). Design of Operations Management internships across organizations - Learning OM by doing OM. Interfaces, 30 (4), 81-93.
16
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 17-27.
Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations

Yiasemina Karagiorgi
3 Ikarou Street, 102, 2107 Aglanjia, Nicosia, Cyprus Tel: +357-22-402346 Fax: +357-22-708010 yiasemin@logos.cy.net
Loizos Symeou
13 Elia Tziambazi, 7101 Aradhippou, Cyprus Tel: +357-22-402314 Fax: +357-22480505 lsymeou@cyearn.pi.ac.cy Abstract
Instructional designers are expected to be familiar with the epistemological underpinnings of several theories and their consequences on the process of instruction. Constructivism is the dominant theory of the last decade and supports construction of knowledge by the individual. This paper discusses the basic principles underlying constructivism, particularly active, collaborative and authentic learning. Application of these principles on the process - analysis, development, evaluation - of instructional design poses certain challenges with regards to issues such as pre-specification of knowledge, authentic evaluation and learner control. Most of the problems are attributed to the fact that constructivism is a learning theory and not an instructional-design theory. Therefore, instructional designers must attempt to translate constructivism into instructional design through a more pragmatic approach that focuses on the principles of moderate - rather than extreme - constructivism and makes use of emergent technology tools. This shift could facilitate the development of more situated, experiential, meaningful and cost-effective learning environments.
Keywords
Instructional design, Constructivism, Authentic learning, Active learning, Multiple perspectives, Collaborative learning
Introduction
The field of instructional design is in a state of rapid change. Instructional designers are expected to be familiar with the epistemological underpinnings of instructional design and the consequences on the process of instruction. Therefore, designers must develop reflexive awareness of the theoretical basis underlying the design and must continuously assess and review instructional theories, tools and resources. As Mergel (1998) stresses, designers must understand the strengths and weaknesses of each learning theory to optimise their use in appropriate instructional design strategies. During the last decade, considerable interest has been paid to the design of constructivistic learning environments. Constructivist instructional design aims to provide generative mental construction tool kits (Jonassen, 1991) embedded in relevant learning environments that facilitate knowledge construction by learners. Compared to traditional instructional systems approaches of designing instruction, constructivism makes a different set of assumptions about learning and suggests new instructional principles. However, design practices do not merely accommodate constructivist perspectives. The implications of constructivism for instructional design are revolutionary as they replace rather than add to our current understanding of learning (Bednar et al., 1992). Instructional designers are thus challenged to translate the philosophy of constructivism into actual practice. This article aims to throw more light into the area of instructional design in terms of the epistemology of constructivism. First, some of the basic principles of constructivism are presented. Second, the implications of constructivism for the design of instruction are discussed in terms of three dimensions: analysis, design and evaluation. Since application of constructivism on the process of instructional design poses certain challenges, some of the most problematic issues such as pre-specification of knowledge, authentic evaluation and learner control are further outlined. Although these issues are not resolved, they lay the foundation for further discussion between instructional designers and constructivists. This paper points to the need for instructional designers to translate constructivism into instructional design through a more pragmatic approach that focuses on the
ISSN 1436-4522. International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@massey.ac.nz.
17
principles of moderate constructivism and makes use of emergent technology tools. Such an attempt could facilitate the emergence of more situated, experiential, meaningful and cost-effective learning environments.
Constructivism An overview of the learning theory

Constructivism is the last decades dominant theory that has roots in philosophy, psychology and cybernetics and attempts to describe how people know the world (von Glasersfeld, 1989). According to the constructivist theory, knowledge is being actively constructed by the individual and knowing is an adaptive process, which organises the individuals experiential world (Mayer, 1992; Hendry, 1996). Hence, the learner is not considered as a controlled respondent to stimuli as in the behaviourist rubric (Jonassen, 1990; Perkins, 1991a) but as already a scientist (Solomon, 1994, p. 16) who actively constructs knowing while striving to make sense of the world on the basis of personal filters: experiences, goals, curiosities and beliefs (Cole, 1992). Knowledge for constructivism cannot be imposed or transferred intact from the mind of one knower to the mind of another. Therefore, learning and teaching cannot be synonymous: we can teach, even well, without having students learn. A core notion of constructivism is that individuals live in the world of their own personal and subjective experiences. It is the individual who imposes meaning on the world, rather than meaning being imposed on the individual. Even though there might be an external absolute reality, cognising beings can never know what that reality is actually like (Tobin & Tippings, 1993, p. 4). The notions of truth and certainty are replaced by the term viability; any knowledge to be constructed has to be viable for its agent under the particular conditions of the case. As Savery and Duffy (1996) point out, what we understand is a function of the content, the context, the activity of the learner and, perhaps more importantly, the goals of the learner (p. 136). Correspondingly, learners do not just take in and store up given information, but they make and test tentative interpretations of new experiences until a satisfactory structure emerges (Perkins, 1991a). Therefore, individuals build a personal view of reality by trying to find order in the chaos of signals that impinge on their senses. Constructivism proposes the existence of many levels of abstractions for knowledge construction. The first level is abstraction from sensory-motor experiences or using Piagets term, from a perceptual experience (von Glasersfeld, 1993). If we reliably repeat such an experience we can conclude that, under the particular circumstances, it is a viable construct. Once such an abstraction has taken place, its result can immediately be taken as material for a further abstraction, and so on. Thus, more abstract concepts are a result of the operations we carry out. At this point, it is important to understand that there are various types of constructivism such as radical, social, physical, evolutionary, post-modern and information-processing. Hence, Ernest (1995) stresses there are as many varieties of constructivism as there are researchers (p. 459). In general, two loosely associated groups are identified: first, radical constructivists who insist that every reality is unique to the individual and second, nonradical or social or moderate constructivists who believe that shared reality grows out of social constraints placed on the constructive process of the individual. For the social constructivists, knowledge is viable not only personally, but also in social contexts (Tobin & Tippings, 1993) while reality is viewed as a constructive process embedded in socio-cultural practices (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). Culture provides different types of tools to help us construct meaning. For example, language, the most frequent of these tools, is characterised by a dynamic process of interchange during which meanings are chosen. Our construction of meaning is grounded in the groups to which we belong through social interactions (von Glasersfeld, 1995; Willis, 1998). Correspondingly, learning that focuses exclusively on individual construction of knowledge is inadequate; our experiential world appeals as a negotiation between individual and social knowledge, whose contributions have a dialectical relationship and cannot be meaningfully separated.
Implications of the constructivist paradigm for the design process

A number of theorists have discussed the ways in which constructivist values influence instructional design and have proposed several principles of the constructivist instructional design model (see Lebow, 1993; Jonassen, 1994; Willis, 1995). For the purposes of this article, reference is made to the implications of constructivism in terms of the three major phases of instructional design: analysis, development, and evaluation. These three dimensions are used here as poles for further discussion.
18
Analysis In the traditional approach, the instructional designer analyses the conditions - such as the content, the learner, and the instructional setting - which bear on the instructional system, in preparation for the specification of intended learning outcomes. In the constructivist approach, the instructional content cannot be pre-specified. Constructivist designers avoid the breaking down of context into component parts as traditional instructional designers do, but are in favour of environments in which knowledge, skills, and complexity exist naturally. Since objects and events have no absolute meaning, the design task is one of providing a rich context within which meaning can be negotiated, and ways of understanding can emerge (Hannafin et al., 1997). Therefore, designers develop procedures for situations in which the instructional context plays a dominant part, and the instructional goals evolve as learning progresses (Tam, 2000). Thus, constructivists do not adopt learning and performance objectives that are internal to the content domain. Instead, they search for authentic tasks and let the specific objectives emerge and be realised as they are appropriate to the individual learner in solving the real-world task (Bednar et al., 1992, p. 25). The goal, for instance, is not to teach a particular version of history, but to teach someone how to think like a historian. Constructivist designers assume that every learner has a unique perspective, so the concept of the global average learner is rejected (Bednar et al., 1992). Empowering students to make choices about how and what they will learn results to a shift from having all learners learning the same things to allowing different learners learn different things. In the opposite case, without a level of persistence and mindfulness in the cognitive process, any benefits of the process become questionable (Greening, 1998). Constructivists are also interested in the learners prior knowledge in terms of cognitive processes and self-reflective skills (Vrasidas, 2000). Both students prior correct concepts and errors or unanticipated responses - often labelled as misconceptions or misunderstandings - are important. Perkins (1991b) points out that, when the prior knowledge is a naive construction, a conflict is caused and the learner can follow three different paths: ignore the conflict (conflict buried), construct a better model of prior understandings (conflict faced) or bracket the intuitive models for a while and learn a new way of thinking about the phenomenon in exploration (conflict deferred). The two latter paths lead learners via reflection to realise that a specific approach used by the experts in the particular knowledge-domain is a product of rational thought. Subsequently, the knowledge leads to reorganisation and accommodation of activities at increasingly sophisticated levels to make problem solving possible. Thereby, instructional designers must confront students with information and experiences that threaten their misconceptions and offer support to this reflective process. Since learning occurs as an act of cognitive restructuring, students metacognitive capabilities are augmented (Greening, 1998). Correspondingly, designers are interested in the learners skills of reflexivity and not on remembering (Bednar et al., 1992).
Development In traditional instruction, this phase involves the design of a sequence to achieve specified performance objectives (Skaalid, n.d.). Draper (1997) states that the instructional design of the Gagne school takes instructional objectives and subdivides them, ending up with a set of small items, for each of which a separate instructional action is taken. As already mentioned, pre-specified content and objectives are not congruent with the constructivist view. Constructivists point to the creation of instructional environments that are studentcentred, student-directed, collaborative, supported with teacher scaffolding and authentic tasks and based on ideas of situated cognition, cognitive apprenticeship, anchored instruction and cooperative learning. Such learning environments involve an abundance of tools to enhance communication and access to real-world examples, reflective thinking, multiple perspectives, modelling or problem solving by experts in a context domain and mentoring relationships to guide learning.
Active Learning According to constructivism, the centre of instruction is the learner. Meaningful understanding occurs when students develop effective ways to resolve problematic situations. Such situations foster motivation, because students have an opportunity to experience the pleasure and satisfaction inherent in problem solving. Constructivists recommend that designers provide problems which may be solved in different ways and leave students struggle with problems of their own choice (von Glasersfeld, 1993). Such problems are regarded by learners as obstacles in their progress towards a goal. Perkins (1991a) points to the need for discovery learning through two approaches of constructing knowledge: Without the Information Given (WIG) and Beyond the Information Given (BIG).
19
Except from problem solving approaches, technology tools must also bring about learners active learning (Spiro et al., 1991b). The technology, as a knowledge construction tool, should confront the learner with a phenomenarium (an artificially limited arena where phenomena to investigate occur, such as an aquarium or a computerised Newtonian microworld) or with a construction kit (a set of modular parts with which to make things, as in Tinker Toys with its physical parts or Logo with its computer-command parts) (Perkins, 1991b). Several cognitive tools can establish a partnership with the learner on the basis of Vygotskys theory of the zone of proximal development. During the partnership the tools provide strategies that experts use to solve problems as well as opportunities for higher level thinking and metacognitive guidance. Such tools can also provide scaffolding, relevant to the learners ability level (Mercer & Fisher, 1992; Murphy, 1997). Scaffolding is the process of guiding the learner from what is presently known to what is to be known. Therefore, the learner engages in cognitive processes, appropriate for the learners zone of proximal development: unfamiliar to the learner and of higher order than the ones the learner would display without the partnership.
Authentic Learning Learners are more likely to view a problem from an ownership perspective when the situations represent authenticity. According to Cey (2001), authentic learning occurs when instruction is designed to facilitate, simulate and recreate real-life complexities and occurrences. Ordinary practices and tools used by professionals of the field under study are the most authentic situations as students are helped to implement knowledge in genuine ways and become aware of the relevancy and meaningfulness of their learning. Therefore, students should be placed in such situations in which they will not be artificially constrained. The complexity of authentic contexts must be maintained; any simplification of the knowledge base, which is the way traditional instruction deals with ill-structured knowledge, facilitates memorisation but denies the development of associations between concepts and reflective metacognitive processes (Greening, 1998). Squires (1999) refers to cognitive authenticity through the articulation of ideas, experimentation and engagement in complex environments as well as contextual authenticity through the relation of tasks to the real world. Thus, constructive instructional designers must situate cognition in real-world contexts. Situated cognition suggests that knowledge and the conditions of its use are inextricably linked (Brown et al., 1989). Learning occurs most effectively in context, which becomes an important part of the knowledge base (Jonassen, 1991). The context facilitates the application and transfer of knowledge in both heavily ill-structured domains, such as medicine, history, literacy interpretation, and well-structured domains at advanced levels of study, such as mathematics (Spiro et al., 1991a). A related approach to situated cognition is anchored instruction, which emphasises skills and knowledge in holistic and realistic contexts (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1991a). This approach aims to help students develop useful knowledge rather than inert knowledge. Anchored contexts support complex and ill-structured problems wherein learners generate new knowledge and problems as they determine how and when knowledge is used. Cognitive apprenticeship is an instructional strategy that provides authentic indexed and situated or anchoring experiences for extended exploration. This method aims primarily at teaching the processes that experts use to handle complex tasks (Hannafin et al., 1997; Conway, 1997). Apprenticeship models promote scaffolding and coaching of knowledge, heuristics, and strategies, while students carry out authentic tasks. Such settings present learners with the phenomena they are learning about and help them understand the problems that experts in various areas encounter and the knowledge that these experts use. As Jonassen (1990) notes: In order to be a physicist, learners must think like physicists, but thinking like a physicist is different than thinking like an artist. Not only are the knowledge domains different, but the ways of thinking about them also differ (p. 34).
Multiple Perspectives Another important strategy is the presentation of multiple and alternative views to learners. A rich learning environment encourages multiple learning styles and multiple representations of knowledge from different conceptual and case perspectives (Kafai & Resnik, 1996). Any specific concept must be approached via a wide range of learning contexts to aim transfer of the knowledge in a broader range of domains. On the contrary, when the learning of a concept occurs as separate topics, the learning remains inert and superficial, bringing about boredom, negative effects on motivation, and incapability of transfer to meaningful real-world situations
20
(Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1991b). Spiro and his colleagues (Spiro & Jehng, 1990; Spiro et al., 1991a) refer to the need for cognitive flexibility that stresses conceptual interrelatedness, provides multiple representations of the content and emphasises case-based instruction that provides multiple themes. This plurality of content, strategies and perspectives typifies post-modern approaches to instruction.
Collaborative Learning A central strategy for constructivism is to create a collaborative learning environment. Collaborative learning does not just entail sharing a workload or coming to a consensus, but allows learners to develop, compare, and understand multiple perspectives on an issue. The goal is the rigorous process of developing and evaluating the arguments (Bednar et al., 1992). Learners should be able to explain and justify their thinking and openly negotiate their interpretations of and solutions to instructional tasks (Cobb, 1994, p. 1051), leading towards the establishment of consensual meanings. The learning environment should make it possible for students to build their theories and articulate these theories to one another. By continually negotiating the meaning of observations, data, hypotheses, and so forth, the learners construct systems that are largely consistent with one another (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1991a). Knowledge, then, becomes explicit, available, generalised and promotes insight into alternative perspectives. Mayer (1999) points out that although social contexts of learning provide opportunities for constructivist learning, not all social contexts promote constructivist learning and more importantly, not all constructivist learning depends on social contexts.
Evaluation Not any interpretation or opinion is as good as any other and the learners are not free to construct any knowledge. The concepts, ideas, theories and models constructed are both built and tested. They will only survive in terms of viability (not in terms of truth) and usefulness in a pragmatic or instrumental sense in the context they arise, and in terms of whether they either do or do not do what they claim to do (Spiro et al., 1991b). In other words, even though the learner is free to build a personal interpretation of the world, this interpretation has to be coherent with the general Zeitgeist (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1991a). Evaluation in the constructivist perspective examines the thinking process. As there are more than one ways of solving a problem, each students approach is more important than a particular solution (Cole, 1992). The students ability to explain and defend decisions is an important element of evaluation and is related to the development of metacognitive skills and self-reflexive processes. Therefore, by looking at the learning activity itself and at the childs ability to reflect upon or discuss that activity, assessment emerges from task performance (Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). This understanding performances principle (Perkins, 1991a), also implies that evaluation calls for measures of transfer of learning and emphasis on student responsibility and autonomy. Learners have an active and critical role in assessing their own learning by articulating what they have learned and how they have made the connections to their previous experiences (Lambert et al., 1995). It is thus argued that multiple evaluators are needed to deal with both goal-driven as well as goal-free evaluation in order to triangulate the learners theories (Cole, 1992). Multiple evaluation methods are also employed to document the learners growth. A contextualised learning environment in which learners can explore and set their own goals, and be assessed via an examination of portfolios and other idiosyncratic accomplishments is recommended (Dick, 1996, as cited in Willis, 1998, p. 14). In general, evaluation methods are context-driven as they assess knowledge construction in real-world contexts that are as rich as those used during the instruction (Jonassen, 1992).
Towards pragmatic constructivism

The application of constructivism to instructional design has certain advantages such as more meaningful learning outcomes, more independent problem-solving capability and more flexibility in both design and instruction activities. However, the translation of constructivism into practice constitutes an important challenge for instructional designers. Most designers do not unconditionally embrace this new epistemology as there are many areas of conflict.
21
The challenges A major issue of debate deals with the pre-specification of knowledge. Instructional designers complain about the constructivist view that learning is a personal interpretation of the world. Therefore, they show little concern for the learners entry level skills, for efficiency and for certifying individual students competency level (Dick, 1992; Tobias, 1992). Additionally, as stressed before, constructivists contest that learning objectives are not possible and that all understanding is negotiated. The conundrum that constructivism poses for instructional designers is that if each individual is responsible for knowledge construction, then designers can not determine and ensure a common set of outcomes for learning (Jonassen, 1994). Besides, the instructional designers access to individual learners cognitions is extremely indirect and limited (Wilson, 1997). The evident autonomy of learners in knowledge construction makes it difficult, if not impossible, to predict how learners will learn or how to plan instructional activities. Hence, constructivist instruction is from a theoretical perspective at least, an oxymoron (Jonassen, 1994). The instructional design approach is very much top-down while the pure constructivist approach is totally bottom-up (Hart, 1997, as cited in Draper, 1997). At the same time, evaluation - the other end of the instructional process - has also produced differences between constructivists and designers. For constructivists, evaluation emerges naturally from authentic tasks and measures learning gain but not mastery of a pre-determined set of skills. However, when learning outcomes are individually constructed - as constructivism suggests - it is extremely difficult to set standards to assess the meaningfulness of the learning. Prawat and Floden (1994) point to the inability of the constructivist approach to evaluate learning. Jonassen (1992) describes evaluation as the thorniest issue yet to be resolved regarding the implications of constructivism for learning and points to the need for evaluation methodologies that possess the cognitive sophistication implied by constructivism. As evaluation becomes demanding, Cey (2001) suggests that peer-assessment and self-assessment must be incorporated. Additionally, there are other areas in which there are either unanswered questions or differences with the typical instructional design approach, such as that of learner control. The key to developing constructivist models is to provide the learners a measure of control over the construction of content (Savery & Duffy, 1995). Constructivists offer the learner almost unlimited discretion to select what is studied, from among available resources and how it is studied. However, this creates problems of accountability that students will learn. Learners might construct the wrong knowledge, skills and abilities since some students just want to be told what they need to learn (Perkins, 1999). Merrill (as cited in Draper, 1997) points out that appropriate learner guidance will make learning far more effective than sink or swim exploration. He further continues that allowing students to structure their own learning in ill structured environments is not a great virtue but abdication of our responsibility as teachers and instructorsstudents do not know or understand their own learning mechanisms (p. 6). Perkins (1991b) suggests that the learner may find the constructivist learning experience dauntingly complex, a tortuous path towards an end that looks as though it might be more directly addressed (p. 164). Therefore, not all learners benefit from having almost unlimited control over their own learning (O Donnell, 2000). Most of the problematic issues described above, stem from the fact that constructivism is an underlying philosophy and not a strategy (Wilson et al, 1995). While constructivism is a well-documented theory of knowing, it is not yet a well-documented theory of teaching (Fosnot, 1992). Further to this, one can also conclude that constructivism is not an instructional-design theory but a learning theory. In contrast to instructional-design theories that describe specific events outside of the learner that facilitate learning, learning theories describe what goes on inside a learners head when learning occurs and are, therefore, less directly applied to educational problems (Reigeluth, 1999). The literature proposes several principles - discussed in the previous sections of the paper - that can be applied to design, but fails to refer to practical model building. In the light of this, constructivists and instructional designers are often on opposite camps. Constructivists are not system builders as they support a philosophy, not a systems approach, that a designer can implement (Petraglia, 1998). Those involved in instructional design, on the other hand, need examples and real-world case tudies of how theory can be applied in practice (Corich, 2004). Snelbecker (1999) refers to instructional designers and instructors as knowledge users who have divergent interests, expectations about and reactions to instructional theories compared to knowledge producers such as theorists and researchers. Constructing the theory: Moderate constructivism In order to develop pragmatic constructivism, there is a need to draw links between constructivist theory and instructional design practices. Therefore, a dialogue between learning theorists and instructional developers should be established to clearly define the theoretical basis of constructivism.
22
In drawing links from theory to practice, it is important to understand that, as mentioned before, constructivism embraces a range of different viewpoints and perspectives, since scholars do not share only one single set of beliefs. Hence, a distinction needs to be drawn between extreme and moderate approaches to constructivism (Merrill, 1991). Extreme constructivism seems to merely have a narrower point of view and be limited to certain kinds of outcomes. On the contrary, principles of moderate approaches can be more easily incorporated into instructional designers repertoire. These modest principles should be generic in order to be relevant to the wide variety of situations encountered (Wilson, 1997). As Merrill (1992) points out, some of the assumptions and prescriptions of a more moderate constructivism are consistent with instructional design theory. Therefore, the needed next step is for designers to consider principles of constructivism that are aligned with non-radical views. An example of application of moderate constructivism on instructional design is Merills second generation instructional design theory. This assumes that mental models are constructed by the learner as a result of experience; that the content of each individuals mental models may be different, but the structure is the same; that knowledge can be pre-specified and represented in a knowledge base that applies to different domains; that teaching authentic tasks in context is desirable, but there is also a need to teach abstractions that are decontextualized; that the instructional strategy and subject matter are somewhat independent; that there are fundamental instructional transactions that can be adapted to a wide variety of situations and used with different subject matter contents; that there are classes of strategies which are appropriate for all learners; that learning should be active, but not always collaborative, since sometimes individual learning is more effective; that testing could be integrated and consistent with the learning objectives, but separate assessment of achievement is also possible. Additionally, it is important to remember that the instructional designers toolbox contains an increasing number of theoretical applications and physical possibilities. Constructivism is one learning theory that supports successful practice, but not the only one. Instructional design does not exclude constructivist strategies, but may also choose alternative strategies when they are appropriate. Other theories such as behaviorism and cognitivism also have their strengths. In Jonassens words, to impose a single belief or perspective is decidedly nonconstructivist (Jonassen, 1999), since there are complementary design tools to be applied in different contexts. Therefore, instructional designers can be eclectic and apply such theories of instructional design in the proper setting and context. Some learning problems require highly prescriptive solutions, whereas others are more suited to learner control of the environment. For example, pre-determined, constrained, sequential, criterion-referenced instructional design is most suitable for introductory learning while constructivist approaches are more appropriate for advanced knowledge acquisition (Mergel, 1998).
Moving onto practice: Technology tools The development of a more pragmatic stance on constructivism and instructional design could provide a more cost-effective approach to instructional development and thus, enable the emergence of effective, situated and experiential environments. Technology built on the assumptions of pure, extreme constructivism is extremely hard to conceive (Merrill, 1992); it is certainly not cost viable to proceed to design that is unique in each case. In general, it is considered easier, less time consuming and less expensive to design within the closed system of the classical instructional design techniques rather than the open constructivist design (Mergel, 1998). Merrill (1991) describes constructivist interventions as labor intensive and Dick (1992) concludes that since such interventions are costly to develop, require technology to implement and are difficult to evaluate, they will probably not be accepted in public schools. However, non-radical constructivism could provide the theoretical rationale for the development of learning environments available to all learners. As technology-related learning ventures represent growing opportunities for applying instructional theories, advancements in technology could make constructivist approaches to learning more possible. Hypermedia environments that allow for non-linear learning and increased learner control are frequently mentioned in the literature, as particularly useful for the constructivist designer (Mergel, 1998). Multimedia and the Internet are also alternatives to the linear structure and facilitate data gathering techniques, supportive of constructivist learning principles. As an experiential learning tool, virtual reality is also considered an enactive knowledgecreation environment. In general, the emergence of environments - such as toolkits and phenomenaria, multimedia, socratic dialogues, coaching and scaffolding, role-playing games, simulations, storytelling structures, case studies, holistic psychotechnologies - could promote instructional strategies that facilitate more active construction of meaning (Wilson, 1997). Moreover, microworlds and virtual reality simulations could stimulate authentic learning while the World Wide Web in general and Web Quests as innovative teaching strategies in particular could offer multiple representations of reality (Cey, 2001).
23
An example of how tools can promote further development of pragmatic constructivism is provided in Jonassens (1999) model for designing constructivist learning environments. This model is a generic context in which students, in groups as well as alone, can be aided in interpreting and solving various kinds of problems. There is usually a problem or question, the understanding of which is supported by related information resources. Cognitive tools help learners interpret and manipulate the aspects of the problem by engaging specific kinds of cognitive processing. Such are problem/task representation tools (visualisation tools), static and dynamic knowledge modelling tools, performance support tools and information-gathering tools. In addition, conversation and collaboration tools enable communities of learners to negotiate and co-construct meaning of the problem. Such are computer conferences that support discourse communities, as well as other shared knowledge-building tools.
Synopsis Conclusion
It is approximately 100 years since John Dewey began arguing for the kind of change that would move schools away from authoritarian classrooms with abstract notions to environments in which learning is achieved through experimentation, practice and exposure to the real world. Today, learning is approached as a constructive, selfregulated, situated, cooperative, and individually different process. In a world of instant information, constructivism can become a guiding theoretical foundation and provide a theory of cognitive growth and learning that can be applied to several learning goals. This article has described how instructional design functions within the constructivist framework. The platform has also been set in terms of the challenges that constructivism holds for instructional designers. In spite of all the problematic areas, the future of constructivism can be optimistic in this field. To enable the transition from theory to practice, there are two important points for consideration. First, that pragmatic constructivism could be built on moderate theoretical assumptions that are more compatible with instructional design practices and second, that the emergence of rich constructivistic environments can be facilitated by the emergence of powerful technology tools. Practical model building along with the eclectic application of learning strategies and technology can help designers accommodate the constructivist perspective so as to respond to the learning requirements of the 21st century.
References
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 17-34. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-41. Cey, T. (2001). Moving towards constructivist classroom, retrieved December 19, 2004 from http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/ceyt/ceyt.htm. Cobb, P. (1994). Constructivism and Learning. In Husen, T. & Postlethwaite, T. N. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1049-1051. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991a). Some thoughts about constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31 (9), 16-18. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991b). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31 (5), 34-40. Cole, P. (1992). Constructivism revisited: A search for common ground. Educational Technology, 33 (2), 27-34. Conway, J. (1997). Educational Technologys Effect on Models of Instruction, retrieved December 16, 2004 from http://copland.udel.edu/~jconway/EDST666.htm. Corich, S. (2004). Instructional Design in the Real World: A View from the Trenches (Book Review). Educational Technology & Society, 7 (1), 128-129.
24
Dick, W. (1992). An Instructional Designers View of Constructivism. In Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 91-98. Draper, S. (1997). Constructivism and Instructional Design, retrieved December 7, 2004 from http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/constr.html. Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology? Educational Technology, 31 (5), 7-12. Duffy, T., & Cunningham D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, New York: Simon and Schuster, 170-198. Ernest, P. (1995). The one and the many. In Steffe, L. & Gale, J. (Eds.), Constructivism in Education, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 459-486. Fosnot, C. (1992). Constructing Constructivism. In Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D.H. (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 167-176. Greening, T. (1998). Building the constructivist toolbox: An exploration of cognitive technologies. Educational Technology, 38 (2), 23-35. Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 (3), 101-117. Hendry, G. D. (1996). Constructivism and educational practice. Australian Journal of Education, 40 (1), 19-45. Jonassen, D. H. (1990). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist view of instructional design. Educational Technology, 30 (9), 32-34. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (3), 5-14. Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Evaluating Constructivistic Learning. In Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D.H. (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 137-148. Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking Technology. Educational Technology, 34 (4), 34-37. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing Constructivist Learning Environments. In Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Vol. II, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 215-239. Kafai, Y., & Resnik, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lambert, L., Walter, D., Zimmerman, D. P., Cooper, J. E., Lambert, M. D., Gardner, M. E., & Szabo, M. (1995). The Constructivist leader, New York: Teachers College Press. Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for systems design: five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 4-16. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 405-412. Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1992). How do teachers help children to learn? An analysis of teachers interventions in computer-based activities. Learning and Instruction, 2, 339-355. Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory, retrieved December 16, 2004 from http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm.
25
Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and Instructional Design. Educational Technology, 31 (5), 45-53. Merrill, M. D. (1992). Constructivism and Instructional Design. In Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D.H. (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 99-114. Murphy, E. (1997). Constructivist Epistemology, retrieved December 16, 2004 from http://www.cdli.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle2.html. O Donnell, A. M. (2000). Constructivism by design and in practice: a review. Issues in Education, 3 (2), 285294. Perkins, D. N. (1991a). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational Technology, 31 (5), 19-23. Perkins, D. N. (1991b). What constructivism demands of the learner. Educational Technology, 31 (9), 19-21. Perkins, D. N. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57 (3), 6-11. Petraglia, J. (1998). The real world on a short leash: The (mis)application of constructivism to the design of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46 (3), 53-65. Prawat, R., & Floden, R. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning. Educational Psychology, 29 (1), 37-48. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Vol. II, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 5-29. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In Wilson, B. G. (Ed.) Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 135-148. Skaalid, B. (n.d.). Elements of Constructivism, retrieved December 10, 2004 from http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/Skaalid/. Snelbecker, G. E. (1999). Current Progress, Historical Perspective, and Some Tasks for the Future of Instructional Theory. In Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Vol. II, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 653-674. Solomon, J. (1994). The rise and fall of constructivism. Studies in Science Education, 23, 1-19. Squires, D. (1999). Educational software for constructivist learning environments: Subversive use and volatile design. Educational Technology, 39 (3), 48-54. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng J. G. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext. In Nix, D. & Spiro, R. (Eds.), Cognition, education, multimedia, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 165-202. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991a). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31 (5), 25-33. Spiro, R. J. Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991b). Knowledge representation, content specification, and the development of skill in situation-specific knowledge assembly: Some constructivist issues as they relate to Cognitive Flexibility theory and hypertext. Educational Technology, 31 (9), 22-25. Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3 (2), 50-60. Tobias, S. (1992). An Eclectic Examination of Some Issues in the Constructivist - ISD Controversy. In Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 205-210.
26
Tobin, K., & Tippings, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In Tobin, K. (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3-21. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In Husen, T. & Postlewaite, N. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 162-163. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In Tobin, K. (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 23-38. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In Steffe, L. P. & Gale, J. (Eds.), Constructivism in education, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3-15. Vrasidas, Ch. (2000). Constructivism Versus Objectivism: Implications for Interaction, Course Design, and Evaluation in Distance Education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6 (4), 339-362. Willis, J. (1995). Recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretist theory. Educational Technology, 35 (6), 5-23. Willis, J. (1998). Alternative instructional design paradigms: Whats worth discussing and what isnt. Educational Technology, 38 (3), 5-16. Wilson, B., Teslow, J., & Osman-Jourchoux, R. (1995). The impact of constructivism (and postmodernism) on instructional design fundamentals. In Seels, B. B. (Ed.), Instructional Design Fundamentals A review and reconsideration, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 137-157. Wilson, B. (1997). Reflections on Constructivism and Instructional Design. In Dills, C. R. & Romiszowski, A. A. (Eds.), Instructional Development Paradigms, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 63-80.
27
Westera, W. (2005). Beyond functionality and technocracy: creating human involvement with educational technology. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 28-37.
Beyond functionality and technocracy: creating human involvement with educational technology
Wim Westera
Head of Educational Implementation Educational Technology Expertise Centre Open University of the Netherlands P.O. Box 2960 6401 DL Heerlen The Netherlands Tel.: 00 31 45 5762408 Fax: 00 31 45 5762800 wim.westera@ou.nl
Abstract
Innovation of education is highly topical. It is obviously boosted by a range of new technologies, which enable new modes of learning that, are independent of time and place through Web-based delivery and computer-mediated communication. However, innovators in education often encounter intrinsic conservatism or even deliberate obstructions. For innovators it is important to be aware of and to understand the basic premises underlying the idea of innovation. This paper explains the origins of technological optimism and the associated faith in progress. Also, techno-pessimism as rooted in the negative side effects of the industrial revolution is reviewed. To solve the conflict between techno-optimism and techno-pessimism we elaborate Borgmanns devices paradigm: in order to avoid apathetic and indifferent consumption of technology-based commodities, users of technological devices should be given the opportunity to develop substantial involvement with the technological devices. While extending this idea to educational technologies, we present an explanatory model for the mediating role of technological artefacts. In conclusion, we explain how to approach technology-based innovations in education by arguing for transparent and interactive devices, for products as carriers of meaning, for values that harmonise with the characteristics of man and for a mixed mode of developing new ideas and preserving former achievements.
Keywords
Information and communication technologies, Learning technology, E-learning, Online learning, Philosophy of innovation
Introduction
More and more, schools and universities present themselves as innovative educational institutes. Web-based learning environments, free laptops, free and fast Internet connectivity and other information and communication technologies (ICT) are expected to entice prospective students to subscription (see the homepages of several universities, www.ou.nl, http://www.psu.edu, http://www.ubc.ca, amongst others). Education is labelled new, different and better as if it were washing-powder. ICT is assumed to be the panacea that is to enable all this: logging in from the students homes, even in the middle of the night, all learning resources at ones elbow, downloading tools, submitting projects, distance coaching. Certainly, new technologies are a driving force for innovation. Yet, behind the faade, educational innovators are often struggling with their teething troubles. ICT is complex and confusing, and it deeply encroaches on the processes of education. Lack of vision, lack of consensus and lack of policy on how to integrate ICT in education consistently, arent very helpful either (Bates, 1995, 2000). Also, students often express their doubts about the benefits of ICT (Poelmans, Joosten & Westera, 2002). As a result, things tend to remain largely the way they are. This paper discusses how we should use technology to innovate and improve education. We will put forward and substantiate the proposition that innovators should broaden their horizon and consider technology as a societal phenomenon that radically affects human functioning. Educational innovators should go deeply into the question how new technologies, such as the telephone, the car or TV affect human functioning: how does technology determine the way humans experience reality and the way they arrange their lives? Without these insights, innovators will never be able to surpass the level of superficial and seductive effects of ICT as promoted in publicity campaigns. In this paper we will go into the nature, the origins and the premises of technology-based
28
innovations. We will present an explanatory model for the mediating role of technological artefacts in human functioning and explain how to approach technology-based innovations in education.
Intrinsic conservatism
Education is known for its conservatism rather than its disposition to innovate. (Kaufman, 1998; Westera, 2003). In the last decades, new technologies in education allowed for various sophistications and improvements, but never changed the basic idea of classroom teaching (Sloep & Westera, 2001). There are various reasons for this conservatism. Clearly, schools and universities want to stick to well-tried methods, because uncertain experiments conflict with the task to lead thousands of students through their exams in time. While computerassisted learning could be fit into the curricula quite easily to substitute only a specific part of a course, the topical introduction of ICT, for instance a web-based learning management system, has large implications on both the institutional infrastructure and the organisation (Bates, 2000; Westera, 2003). This makes the introduction of ICT a costly, complex and uncertain operation, which calls up many hesitations. In addition, education is all about consolidation and transfer of existing knowledge, skills and attitudes from one generation to the next; this gives conservatism a natural basis in education. Educational staff is a product of the educational system itself and is probably pervaded with common patterns and role models (Westera, 1999). All this makes educational innovation a perilous undertaking.
The need to innovate

There are two important motives for educational innovation (Westera, 1999). First, in a continually changing society education has to change as well. The branch of education has to innovate its programmes in order to keep up with rapidly changing demands of society. The modish but pivotal term here is the information society (Toffler, 1980) or rather knowledge society, referring to the ever-growing importance of knowledge as a means of production. This development gives rise to continuously changing demands upon employees. These can no longer be considered ignorant labourers who carry out routine jobs, but are expected to be proactive, enterprising, responsible and self-reliant professionals. They should be competent and flexible team players that are able to apply and share their expertise in service of shared goals and to adapt their expertise continually to new insights and developments (Barnett, 1994; Walton, 1985). Secondly, innovation is necessary to keep up with other educational providers. Internal processes should be arranged better, faster, and cheaper in order to serve students adequately. Indeed, new technologies, like Web-based learning management systems, might improve the providers service levels against reduced cost. Bates (1995) blames the fixated organisational model of classroom teaching and passes a scathing judgement on the role of teachers. According to Bates, teaching as such is not professionalised. It rarely uses a design and it has hardly been influenced by research into instructional design, psychology of learning or other topics concerning human functioning. Teaching remains largely craft-based, while favouring the (pre-medieval) model of apprenticeship learning. As a consequence, it hardly allows for any division of labour to increase the efficiency. Indeed, educational institutes fairly resemble a collection of distinct one-man shops. Because other organisational models are rarely considered, the innovation effort is just additional to regular work and readily leads to increased unit costs. This is exactly what can be observed with the introduction of campus-wide learning management systems (Jrg, Admiraal & Droste, 2002). From an economical perspective, such schools and universities are destined to pine away on the market of educational service providers, because of poor performance, bad quality education and disproportionately high cost. Some authors (Kaufman, 1998; Kearsley, 1998) blame educational technologist for not fulfilling the high expectations. During the last decades, educational technologies indeed comprise many failures: film, school-TV, instructional video, courseware and multimedia never fulfilled their promises. According to Kaufman, educational technology failed to substantiate the claims and kept supporting the common teacher-centred pedagogy. As a consequence many teachers receive new technologies with reserve (Sloep & Westera, 2001).
The innovation drive

To understand the contradiction between conservatism and innovation it is necessary to look beyond straightforward, opportunist and superficial reasons for innovation and investigate the intrinsic motives and premises that drive us to innovation. Humans are essentially creative beings that continuously come up with new ways to do things better, easier or faster. The wheel, the alphabet, mathematics, . it is essentially the ideas that
29
make up our culture. Indeed, civilisations are determined by ideas rather than biological or physiological aspects of human life: civilisations differ precisely in the ideas that compose them and that make them develop in different ways. In essence, civilisation is ideas and no more than ideas (von Mises, 1957). Richness of ideas is a unique human feature that strongly corresponds with innovative power. Therefore innovation is a phenomenon that is inextricably bound up with humankind. Over the last centuries innovative efforts have produced impressive achievements: sophisticated medical cures, agricultural methods, new modes of transport, communication media, information technologies etc. These keep fostering the optimism for prosperity, increasing standards of living or, in a broader sense, better conditions of life. The cradle of the optimism goes back to the Enlightenment, an intellectual movement in the seventeenth and eighteenth century that strongly influenced the portrayal of mankind. It is the era of great scientists, philosophers and writers, like Descartes, Newton, Leibnitsch, Locke, Kant, Voltaire and Diderot. They claim that man is rational and good by nature. Also Darwin should be mentioned, whose theory of evolution reflected the conflict between science and religion, while it rejected the idea of creation of life according to the Bible book of Genesis. Rather than the creationist belief that every species was created individually by God and is not subject to change or progress, it claimed that life has developed in a progressive way from primitive forms to complex organisms. The Enlightenment marked the liberation from the medieval doctrines of magic, superstition, prejudices and the fear of God by replacing it with human rationality. The fear of God makes way for a scientific description and explanation of the world. Beliefs are not anymore accepted on the authority of priests, sacred texts, or tradition, but only on the basis of reason. Reinforced by the idea of natural regularity and material cause the Scientific Revolution successfully proclaimed the ideology of upward development, progress and improvement of the world, encouraged by an ever-increasing knowledge, understanding and control of natures processes. It asserts that the individual as well as humanity as a whole can progress to perfection. Indeed, tangible results are omnipresent, be it only for part of the world population.
Innovation and culture

The simple notion that innovation implies progress and leads to a better world, unmistakably reflects the values of our modern society. To mention a few: economy of growth, capitalism, materialism, competition, techno-optimism and scientific positivism. Being tightly linked with the starting points of modern (western) society, innovation is necessary condition for all economic functioning. Innovations further the creation of new products, services and production processes, which will provide an economic actor with an advantage over its competitors. The predominant motto is innovate or pine away and the concepts of growth, progress, innovation and change seem to have become self-evident. Indeed, according to Charles Darwin and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, survival depends on our ability to change. Abandoning innovation means stagnation, stagnation means decline. The decline doesnt only concern our economy but will affect our culture as a whole. Innovation is not straightforward. It is inevitable within the constraints of our societal system.
Criticism on rationalism
Enlightenments rationalism has been subject of severe criticism. Opponents claim that rationalisms unconstrained belief in progress and its focus on human reasoning isnt capable of describing and understanding the nature of human emotions, feelings, moral and ethics (Husserl, 1913; Jaspers, 1931; Heidegger, 1977; Hickman, 1990). The strict depreciation of non-rational aspects of man disregards what probably is the predominant factor of human functioning. Consequently, the concept of progress is not applicable to happiness, compassion and other states of mind. Put differently, progress does not imply that modern man is happier or more compassionate than his ancestors were. In rationalism education is restricted to cognitive development, emphasising knowledge rather than attitudes and competence development (Westera, Sloep & Gerritsen, 2000). Important determinants of learning, like motivation, perseverance and commitment are neglected, which greatly contrast with contemporary views on learning. Also, the absolute rejection of beliefs on authority disregards the knowledge that has accumulated during past generations. Such a strategy would be very ineffective and would rarely lead to high levels of expertise.
Techno-pessimism
Innovators are often accused of promoting decline rather than progress. Negative side effects like vanishing nature, depletion of fossil fuels, pollution of water, soil and air, not to mention the uncontrollable threat of
30
biological, chemical and nuclear armament are an easy breeding ground for techno-pessimism and a glorification of the past. Some schools deliberately avoid the term innovation and prefer to emphasise traditional values like order, discipline, and perseverance (for example English boarding schools). Scepticism against new technologies arose in the 19th century, when the negative effects of the industrial revolution painfully became manifest. In a gloomy analysis, the existentialist Jaspers (Jaspers, 1931) advocated his alienation thesis: technology creates a totally new material environment and causes human beings to become alienated from the world. In this era of the industrial revolution, human craftsmen were increasingly replaced by machines that not only made production faster and cheaper but also allowed for the mass production of objects that met constant quality standards. In highly rationalised and controlled production processes, human workers were degraded from unique individuals to interchangeable workers, destined to be just a cog in the machine. In addition to this, the highly bureaucratic organisational form made people dissolve in their functional roles rather than supported human identity and individuality. Through this mass production, human individuals became more and more ignorant of the origin, composition or functioning of industrial products, be it food, clothes or consumer electronics. Prevailing values like economy, frugality and sustainability lost ground because of the availability of many identical and exchangeable duplicates: indeed, broken products could be easily replaced with a new specimen. People were thus trapped in a pattern of passively fulfilling their material needs by everreplaceable stuff that was abundantly available (Verbeek, 2000). In this view, inspired by the negative effects of the industrial revolution, technology seemed to have become a power in its own right (Ellul, 1964), that controlled society autonomously and alienated human individuals from the world and from themselves. Many of these patterns can still be observed today: the inescapable way technology enters our lives and makes us dependent, our fixation on material needs and the resistance of teachers whos well-respected role of craftsmen is gradually degraded to that of a cog in the machine (Heinich, 1984). Yet, Jaspers instrumental view doesnt quite come up to the mark to describe technologys role in the digital age: the idea of labourers in mass production differs significantly from the present situation of highly skilled and autonomous knowledge workers. The instrumental view, which reduces humans to simple toolmakers and tool users, doesnt adequately describe technologys interaction with todays society (Hickman, 1990).
Technologys mediating role

From the 20th century, technology is no longer considered a mere instrument of industrial innovation. It is interpreted from the idea that technology makes up an integral part of life and fundamentally alters the way we experience reality. Husserl (1913), Heidegger (1977) and other phenomenologists considered technology by investigating its role in the way individuals perceive and experience the world and interpret it by attaching meaning to it. They investigated how our material environment determines our identity and how it changes the way we arrange our life. In their view, technology has no essence as such, but can only be understood by considering the context of its use. In fact, technology is assumed to mediate and give form to the relationship that individuals have with the world they experience. Television, for instance, creates new ways to open up reality. To evaluate the role of television, it is not sufficient to consider only its technical and functional characteristics. It is necessary to include its context of use and to consider its impact on the human experience. Put differently, technology has to be analysed by linking the object of experiences (the world) with the subject of experience (the individual). It thus overcomes the dichotomy between object and subject as claimed by Descartes and his fellow rationalists and replaces it with their mutual involvement: object and subject are assumed to constitute each other. As McLuhan (1964) and Postman (1986) demonstrated, television is not just an information channel that is additional to books, newspapers or lectures. It fundamentally changes the way we experience and interpret the world. Such a phenomenological view, however, doesnt seem to make the observations less gloomy. Fromm (1941), McLuhan (1964), Postman (1986) and Baudrillard (1995) criticised the role of modern mass media (radio, television, Internet), which incoherent flow of trivialities is supposed to reinforce a primitive and fragmented view on the world (the zap culture). In their view, such a technological innovation is only material in nature and supports the loss of human capabilities like commitment, reflectivity and profundity. Web-based education is open to the same risks; fragmentation, shallowness and alienation lie in wait. In accordance with Postmans and Baudrillard's objections tot mass media, hypertexts as presented on the web often lead to unwanted disorientations (Bruer, 2003), which makes in-depth and coherent study of separate texts via the web problematic. Also, with all worldwide answers within reach, it is tempting to switch off thinking (Baudrillard, 1995): learning may easily coincide with the random and impulsive collection of data which first appearance is more important than its significance. This would promote the unconcerned citation of sources and
31
would hamper the acquisition of insights and understanding. It bears the risk of a technology-based innovation that promotes decline rather than progress.
How to innovate?
So far, the interpretation of technology-induced change is quite a gloomy affair. Indeed, techno-optimism and belief in progress are greatly challenged by various philosophical movements. With technology, it seems, man is doomed to self-destruction and will loose all his achievements. If, nevertheless, innovation is marked an essential condition for survival, a deadly contradiction seems to remain: innovation is inescapable, but will eventually destroy us. This is an oppressive idea, totally unacceptable for educational innovators and not only for them. It is necessary to break through this paradox and to look for clues how technology can contribute to our existence in a sensible way. Today, Heideggers view that technology mediates the relationship between humans and their world, is widely accepted, both by existentialists and phenomenologists. It is inadequate to consider technological products as mere instrumental solutions for practical problems, as Jaspers did. Mistakenly, such technocratic view neglects the psychological and emotional factors that add extra value and meaning to a product. According to Dewey and Hickman (Hickman, 1990), technological tools and instruments are never value-neutral but rather teeming with values and potentialities, which may cause unexpected responses, strongly deviating from the initial intentions. It is just this direction of added values and meanings that provides opportunities to overcome the deadlock. The frugal, technocratic concept of functionality is no longer satisfactory to describe and understand the significance of technology. The existentialist Borgmann (1984) approaches this problem at the level of concrete technological devices. Although his devices paradigm cannot avoid some gloominess, it seems to produce sensible hints for the favourable application of technology.
The role of devices

Borgmann (1984) cautiously combines both elements of techno-optimism (technology can solve any problem) and Jaspers alienation thesis (technology detaches us from reality). According to Borgmann, technology promises a relief and enrichment of human existence. It liberates humans from burdens by making available a multitude of goods like heat, light, water, food, information, etc., without any effort whatsoever. In ancient times, our ancestors needed a full days work to find enough food, gather wood, make fire etc., while today, we dish up a ready-to-eat meal within a few minutes. Those were tough times: lighting the stove required knowledge, but also dedication, perseverance, goal-orientedness and involvement with the tools available. Today, the availability of goods is straightforward, omnipresent, easy, safe and immediate. Heat, light and information become available by simply pressing a button on technological devices like central heating, electric lighting and TV-sets. What used to be an achievement has become a simple commodity, which demands no commitment, proficiency and skills acquired by effort, discipline and involvement with the world. The efforts are now taken care of by the devices machinery. In most devices the machinery, i.e. the technology, is deliberately kept out of sight. Who needs light, only needs a switch to turn it on: the machinery of electric wires, wire connectors and cable plugs is hidden behind ceiling and wallpaper. After all, only by hiding the machinery and separating it from the commodity, commodities become available in a straightforward and effortless way, that is, without any commitment or skills involved. According to Borgmann, such pattern of separating the commodity from the machinery only leads to apathetic consumption, which is detached from any social or material context and which removes the involvement with the world. Blindfold, we locate and operate the switches that provide us with what we need, without wondering a single moment where this all comes from. Like Jaspers, Borgmann indicates that man is alienating from his world and becomes more and more ignorant of the origin, composition or working of the products he consumes. However, his argument is not mass production, but rather the fact that man has no access to the machinery of products and thus is forced to accept these as magical accomplished facts. He calls on breaking out this technological consumerism not by simply rejecting technology, but by restoring the relationship between the commodity and the machinery. Users of technological artefact should be given the opportunity to develop commitment with it. Devices should preferably be transparent and reveal the secrets of its machinery. To amplify the users involvement, devices should also be adjustable to personal preferences. By making its machinery accessible, users are able to maintain, repair and adapt the devices. Indeed, from an existentialist view involvement is more important than availability. Borgmann suggests devices that support focal practices, that is, activities that demand high degrees of involvement, that require discipline, perseverance, concentration and skills, that are physically and mentally challenging and are difficult to master, that provide satisfaction and pleasure, that stimulate rather than discourage our ties with the world and that serve no particular goal other than being a focal practice. Examples of focal practices would be walking (instead of taking the bus), cooking (instead of ordering a pizza), repairing an old bicycle (instead of
32
buying a new one) or any other activity that demands intrinsic involvement and hence serves the existential relationship with our world.
Toward solutions
Borgmanns idea of focal practices can be easily linked to educational technology. Although educational services are more and more considered as straight commodities that are being delivered and consumed within a commercial framework, it is clear that the acquisition of skills and knowledge by learners requests large commitments. Learners have to be motivated, self-reliant and responsible. They should show intrinsic involvement, they should be completely bound up in the subject and they should in fact to continue learning forever. The learning itself can frankly be labelled a focal practice. This is exactly what lifelong learning means: making the learning a goal as such, acquiring knowledge because of the knowledge, getting wiser and wiser without a clear finish. Also the changing opinions about learning and learning processes fit into the picture. Contemporary views on learning no longer equate learning with the absorption (i.e. consumption) of information, but rather consider it the active (i.e. involved) construction of knowledge by the learners. The suggestion that todays learners are hard to motivate and only interested to pass their exams with the least possible effort may indicate that education evokes too little commitment and thus fosters apathetic consumerism. It is interesting to apply Borgmann's line of thought to the technology-based innovation of education. This will provide guiding principles for educational innovations in practice and may help avoid problems we touched upon earlier in this paper. Figure 1 resumes how a technological artefact mediates the relationship between man and his world.
Figure 1. The mediating role of technological artefacts
Three levels of mediation are distinguished: The level of commodity: In the case of a car, the commodity would be the possibility to travel from A to B. This is the level of functional use, which provides relief and enrichment, i.e. the ease of travelling. In education: a digital portfolio provides easy accessible webspace or folders to store relevant documents. The level of the machinery: In the case of a car, the machinery comprises the system of mechanical parts and electrical circuits that enable the car to drive. Rather than holding back the machinery from its users, the machinery should be accessible in order to allow for involvement. Involvement with the devices machinery will further insight and satisfaction. In education: the digital portfolio can be configured at will to meet individual preferences. The level of symbolic meaning: Symbolic meaning is attached to the commodity: a four-wheel drive indicates a different lifestyle or status of the owner than a limousine. This level allows users to express and distinguish themselves; it allows users to become part of a specific subculture. In education: the digital portfolio is made accessible to third persons to display relevant symbolic cues. In the next paragraphs we will elaborate these levels of mediation and elaborate the connection with educational technology. We will start with the commodity level and then turn to the machinery level and the level of symbolic meaning.
33
The commodity level: the utilitarian function of technology

This is the predominant level of functional use. It is characterised by an unrestricted pragmatism and goalorientedness of users, who degrade technology to an instrumental utility, simply a practical means to arrive at an end. Indeed, many learners opt for the easiest way to obtain their course certificates. Such attitude rests on an instrumental approach of technology, which according to Borgmann and Jaspers is likely to cause alienation and apathetic consumerism. Unwittingly, educators seem to promote such attitudes also. Until now, the motto form follows function is exemplary in education. It means that anything that doesnt evidently contribute to the achievement of learning goals is resolutely omitted. The motto goes back to the modernism of 1930s, which proclaimed that all products should be modelled after machines: simple and prepared for their function. It represents a rocklike faith in technology and it reflects the ideas of the 19th centurys instrumentalism for a great deal. Indeed, educational technology is often regarded a mere instrument (form) to meet pedagogical demands (functions). The virtual classroom would be a good case in point here: transferring traditional pedagogical functions (i.e. the well-established classroom concept) to a new instrumental context (internet technologies). As the complexity of the applied technologies increases, one might wonder to what extent alienation is likely to occur. To stimulate the students and teachers involvement they should get access to the virtual classrooms machinery in order to configure preferred settings, to explore the technologys possibilities, to develop new behaviours and, preferably, to create new pedagogical models: technology and pedagogy are assumed to constitute each other. The form follows function motto and its associated instrumentalism has also been criticised by Ellul (1964). Ellul considers technology the defining force of a new social order that is obsessed by the values of rationality, efficiency, usefulness and materialism. Ethical and esthetical considerations seem to play no role whatsoever. Also in education such trends can be observed: increases in scale, budget reductions and new technologies enlarge the distance between teachers and learners and affect the pedagogical climate. More and more, education shows features of a commodity. Clearly, such development is at odds with the ideas of involvement and focality. To counteract this technocracy, educational technology should extend its values beyond efficiency and functionality: education should be interesting, attractive, entertaining, challenging, pleasing, intriguing or even fatiguing, deterring and only useful as such. This is no plea for inefficiency, but a plea for values that harmonise with the characteristics of man. After all, education can play an important part in the individuals life fulfilment. Along this line of thought, contemporary pedagogies promote critical attitudes, self-determination or independence of learners in order to counteract intellectual consumerism and laziness. Schools that would emphasise the ease of studying (possibly with ICT as enabler) promote the commodity as such.
The machinery level: Transparent and interactive devices

For the design and development of technological artefacts it is important to reveal its machinery to its users (Borgmann, 1984). Devices should be transparent to allow involvement from its users. We distinguish four modes of involvement: Sensory involvement Conceptual involvement Operational involvement Material involvement As a first step sensory involvement should be pursued, which means that the devices machinery is visible, audible or tangible. The next level of involvement would be conceptual in kind: by revealing the machinerys functional components, it becomes clear how the device operates, even when most technologies are often too complex to be fully understood by laymen. At the level of operational involvement it is important that users can practically and diversely interact with the devices, in order to develop their own unique methods and routines of use (cf. a piano). The ultimate level of involvement would be material in kind: by offering accessibility to the machinery, users are enabled to care for it, to maintain it and to carry out repairs and upgrades. Such involvement matches the idea of sustainability and counteracts the pattern of mass consumption, which allows the easy replacement of faulty products with a new, identical specimen. In education, one might think of an electronic learning environment that students can configure and adapt at will, not only with respect to a preferred lay-out or user-interface, but also with respect to the preferred complexity of learning tasks, the sequencing of learning tasks or the levels of support and feedback. Such measures would be consistent with the notions of constructivism that learning is an active process of knowledge construction, that the conditions of learning should be in control of learners rather than teachers and that learners should be able to match their learning
34
opportunities to their own learning needs. Also, transparency of the instructional design and its motives, underlying the learning tasks and learning materials may readily amplify the students involvement, insight and motivation. Whenever education becomes a straitjacket, the learners are hindered at developing their focal practice and are compelled to accept (or probably reject) it as a mere commodity.
The level of symbolic meaning: technology as signifier

Instead of opening up a devices machinery in order to enhance the users involvement, one could also exploit the devices socio-cultural impact, which refers to the symbolic role that products may fulfil by signifying additional meaning. By buying and exhibiting a product, consumers can distinguish themselves from others while they signify a particular lifestyle, preference or subculture. Since the form follows function-motto got obsolete in the 1960s, products have become carriers of meaning more and more (Verbeek, 2000). Today, the outward appearance of products has become a decisive asset at the expense of functionality. The association with lifestyle strongly stimulates the involvement of the owner and supports the mediating role of products. Education seems to lag behind many decades by still aiming exclusively at functionality alone and it thus seems to miss the opportunity to enhance the learners involvement. In accordance with Ellul (1964) educational technology should go beyond functionality. Education should link its products with symbolic meaning: favourite lifestyles and emotions, even if this idea is just a result of the perhaps detested consumer society and its advertising men. So, it may be wise to upgrade the symbolic value of lifelong learning, because no one wants to be the loser that spends all his leisure time at the garret, cramming for an exam. Lifelong learners deserve a better image. Establishing such symbolic meaning is more than a sly salesmanship. New educational technologies indeed offer plenty of possibilities to arrive at symbolic meanings that are more attractive. First, the ever-growing importance of knowledge in our society suggests that lifelong learning will be more and more associated with standing and esteem. Secondly, economic inequality between people will no longer be determined by large-scale landownership as it was in the agrarian age, or by capital as it was in the industrial age, but is increasingly established by the degree that people have access to information and communication technologies and the associated opportunities for individuals to search for information, to consult other people or to work together (Soete, 2002). Being a nerd may even become worth striving for.
In conclusion
As has been pointed out above, education should be considered a focal practice rather than a mere commodity. Indeed, contemporary views on learning presume learners to be self-reliant, motivated and responsible individuals rather than apathetic consumers. Essential presuppositions for learning like the learners involvement, discipline, perseverance, reflectivity and independence, can only be accounted for when technologys mediating role is extended to the level of the technologys machinery and the level of symbolic meaning. At the machinery level it is necessary to reveal to the users the mechanisms underlying the technology or even make the machinery accessible and adjustable. Such an approach fosters the users involvement and amplifies their insight, motivation and satisfaction. For example: students should be allowed to configure and adapt their (electronic) learning environments at will. This creates the students ideas of ownership and responsibility, and invites to maintain and manage the environment actively. At the symbolic level, educational technology should strive to go beyond functionality and efficiency and pursue added values that make education interesting, tough, important, intriguing and the like. Education and its applied technological artefacts should literally be transformed into a way of life. Indeed, new educational technologies offer plenty of possibilities to arrive at relevant symbolic meanings that enable individuals to express and distinguish themselves. Although the importance of technology-based innovations for society has been demonstrated extensively, it cannot be the ultimate and only ambition. Life demands a mixed mode of developing new ideas and preserving former achievements. Such mixed modes will be necessary in education as well. Not only because knowledge itself is a dynamic construct which covers both state of the art insights and well-established ones, but also because the educational arena is characterised by both new industrial technologies and traditional teaching craftsmanship. The challenge for education is to meet the continually changing needs of society. The sensible application of new technologies is inescapable. As education will fail to fulfil its role in society, it will be torn between the public demand for revolutionary innovations at the one hand and, at the other hand, the demand for regression to former days, when education apparently was successful in educating people.
35
References
Barnett, R. (1994). The Limits of Competence, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Bates, A. W. (1995). Technology, Open Learning and Distance Education, London/New York: Routledge. Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing Technological Change, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Baudrillard, J. (1995). The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (trans. Patton, P.), Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Borgmann, A. (1984). Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life, Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Bruer, J. T. (2003). Learning and Technology: A View from Cognitive Science. In ONeil, H. F. & Perez, R. S. (Eds.), Technology Applications in Education, A Learning View, London/Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 159-172. Ebersole, S. (2001). Media determinism in cyberspace. In L. R. Vandervert, L. V. Shavinina & R. A. Cornell (Eds.), CyberEducation, the Future of Long Distance learning, New York: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Publishers, 15-40. Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society, New York: Vintage. Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom (24th printing, 1964), New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays (trans. Lovitt, W.), New York: Harper and Row. Heinich, R. (1984). The Proper Study of Educational Technology. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 32 (2), 67-87. Hickman, L. (1990). John Deweys Pragmatic Technology, Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Jaspers, K. (1931). Die geistige Situation der Zeit, Berlin: Gschen. Jrg, T., Admiraal, W. & Droste, J. (2002). Onderwijsorintaties en het gebruik van ELO's, deel 2, Red: Joke Droste, Jos van de Gruiter, Inge Keijsers, Utrecht: Stichting SURF, retrieved June 25, 2004 from http://www.surf.nl/publicaties. Kaufman, R. (1998). The Internet as the ultimate technology and panacea. Educational Technology, 38 (1), 6364. Kearsley, G. (1998). Educational Technology: A critique. Educational Technology, 38 (1), 47-51. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: Extensions of Man, New York: McGraw-Hill. von Mises, L. (1957). Theory and History, an Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution, New Haven: Yale University Press. Poelmans, P., Joosten, G., & Westera, W. (2002). ICT in het onderwijs van de OUNL: ervaringen van studenten. In Cordewener, B., Gruiter, J. van de, & Keijsers, I. (Eds.), ICT in het onderwijs vanuit studentenperspectief, Utrecht: Stichting SURF, 36-42, retrieved December 9, 2004 from http://www.surf.nl/download/SURF_EducatieFreeks_10.pdf. Postman, N. (1986). Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, New York: Penguin. Sloep, P. B., & Westera, W. (2001). Maatwerk met digitaal onderwijs. Controllers Magazine, June, 27-30.
36
Soete, L. (2002). Persoonlijke eigenschappen zijn nu bepalende economische factoren. In Wichart, I., Delemarre, V., & Sulman, G. (Eds.), Perspectieven op de kennissamenleving; Gesprekken over Nederland als 'kennisland'; achtergrondstudie 29, Den Haag: adviesraad voor wetenschaps- en technologiebeleid, 87-92, retrieved December 9, 2004 from http://www.awt.nl/uploads/files/as29.pdf. Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave, New Jersey: Morrow. Verbeek, P. (2000). De daadkracht der dingen, Amsterdam: Boom. Walton, R. E. (1985). Towards a Strategy of Eliciting Employee Commitment Based on Policies of Mutuality. In R. E. Walton & P. R. Lawrence (Eds.), HRM, Trends and Challenges, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 30-53. Westera, W. (1999). Paradoxes in Open, Networked Learning Environments: Towards a Paradigm Shift. Educational Technology, 39 (1), 17-23. Westera, W., Sloep, P. B., & Gerrissen, J. (2000). The Design of the Virtual Company; Synergism of Learning and Working in a Networked Environment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37 (1), 23-33. Westera, W. (2003). Implementing Integrated E-Learning. In Jochems, W., Koper R. & Merrinboer, J. van (Eds.), Integrated E-Learning; Towards more powerful Learning Environments, London: RoutledgeFalmer, 176186.
37
Russell, D. L., & Schneiderheinze, A. (2005). Understanding Innovation in Education Using Activity Theory. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 38-53.
Understanding Innovation in Education Using Activity Theory

Donna L. Russell
University of Missouri-Kansas City Instructional Technology, Curriculum and Instructional Leadership Suite 309, School of Education Kansas City, MO 64110, USA russelldl@umkc.edu
Art Schneiderheinze
Project Construct National Center 1115 Kennesaw Ridge Road #707, Columbia, Missouri 65202, USA ASchneid@columbia.k12.mo.us
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to describe how four teachers in four different cities in Missouri implemented a constructivist-based learning environment (CBLE) that included an innovation cluster that paired an emerging online technology with a unit design framework. The motivating question for the study originated from prior research on teacher reform efforts including the adoption of technology innovations in the classroom, new theories of constructivist-based learning and the principles of professional development for educators implementing reform. Using a multiple case study research method, the researchers collected and analyzed data to (1) identify how effectively each of the teachers implemented the CBLE unit based on their goals for adopting the innovations while participating in online collaborative professional development and (2) identify cross-case issues that arose as the teachers implemented the unit. Conclusions in the study suggest that the teachers implemented innovation into their classrooms with varied levels of effectiveness based on their initial goals for the reform process. Aspects that influenced the effectiveness of their unit and the implementation of the innovation included (1) the teachers ability to benefit from online collaborative professional development forums, (2) the teachers problem-solving strategies for resolving conflict issues related to their local school environment, and (3) their prior conceptions about teaching and learning and their compatibility with the reform instructional pedagogy.
Keywords
Technology innovations in education, Activity theory methodology, Professional development for innovators in education, Problem-based learning
Introduction
This study is based on sociocultural theories of learning and development with a systems-based methodology that identifies the characteristics and consequences of purposeful efforts at change from the viewpoint of the educator. Several aspects of innovative educational settings were identified as background understandings necessary to design the study including previous studies of innovation, technology innovation in education, research on constructivist classrooms and the mediational aspects of implementing innovative tools into complex human systems. Previous studies of innovation decision-making have been limited in their ability to understand the adoption of innovations by three factors: (1) they often lack the perspective of the potential adopter, (2) they lack a recognition of social and contextual structures inherent in the environment, and (3) they do not address the possibility that the adoption of one innovation can be contingent upon its relationship to another innovation. Identifying and understanding teachers goals and beliefs is critical to creating a evaluative analysis of reform efforts in education. Researchers have primarily understood innovations as independent variables; however, once they enter the classroom, the innovations become part of a complex system of social and pedagogical interactions. Finally, previous studies on innovation adoption have not considered innovation as a goal-based process that is impacted by or contingent upon other innovative aspects in the research environment. While recognizing that Internet technology affords K-12 teachers new tools that allow for expanded forms of communication, analysis, and expression by students and teachers, the Web-Based Education Commission (2000) contends that education is far from meeting the potential impact of Internet-based technology. Our society places greater demands on educational systems to develop learners who can use knowledge in new areas
ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@massey.ac.nz.
38
and different situations. Implementing new technologies more effectively can help educators meet this societal demand. In the Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States (1997), the committee of advisors recognizes the benefits of a constructivist theoretical framework to learning and recommends looking more closely at the constructivist pedagogic model and the role of technology as a tool to mediate learners to use knowledge in new areas and different situations. Contemporary constructivist-based learning principles suggest that students should actively participate in goalbased activities that provide them the opportunity to construct knowledge responses to meaningful issues. According to Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson (1999), constructivist learning involves knowledge that is constructed not transmitted, embedded in activity, and anchored in the context of the activity. Knowledge construction can be part of a how students interact and respond in a classroom (Jonassen, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Salomon, 1993). Technology has the potential to support students in the development of these higher-level knowledge use abilities (Blumenfeld, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial, & Palincsar, 1991; Pea, 1993). When technologies are inserted into the educational environment, they are meant to develop learning abilities in the students. However, these technologies do not function in the vacuum. Instead they are coupled to the existing tools and concepts in the setting. When teachers attempt to implement a technology innovation in the classroom, they naturally face the complex challenge of fitting together new ideas with deep-rooted pedagogical beliefs and practices. An innovation presents people with alternative tools and ways of completing everyday tasks and solving a variety of problems in ways not possible without the innovation. However, new cultural tools, such as technology, contain both affordances and constraints that mediate the actions of the agent, in this case, the teacher (Wertsch, 1998). Through the process of implementing these new cultural tools into classroom practice, a tension is inserted into the work activity system of the teacher. In response to this tension, teachers take advantage of an innovation in means that reflect the way in which they negotiated old and new ways of doing things (Bruce, Peyton, & Batson, 1993). The ways they respond to these tensions affects how effectively they implement the intended reform. In this study four teachers collaboratively designed and implemented a constructivist-based learning environment (CBLE) in order to develop advanced learning abilities in their students utilizing two clustered innovations, an emerging online technology and a template for a constructivist unit design process. The questions in this study defined the relationship among aspects of the implementation process which included the adoption of an innovation cluster, defined for this study as the purposeful implementation of two related innovations in order to effect change (Rogers, 1995; Wilson, Sherry, Dobrovolny, Batty, & Ryder, 2001). This study systemically identified the important factors in the teachers classrooms that affected their ability to respond to tensions caused by the adoption of an innovation cluster and relate these responses to how effectively the teachers were able to meet their goals for implementing the CBLE unit using the innovative tools.
Methodology
In this study, the researchers used Activity Theory (AT) as a qualitative methodology with descriptive case study methods of data structuring and analysis in order to develop an understanding of a complex social system. AT (Engestm, 1987) is a systemic analysis of complex human environments providing the researchers with concepts that were used as instruments in developing an understanding of these systems. Activity systems are historically conditioned systems of interrelated contacts among individuals and the "proximal culturally organized environments" (Salomon, 1993, p. 8). An activity system contains a variety of different elements including viewpoints, or voices, as well as layers of historically accumulated artifacts, rules, and patterns of division of labor. By identifying these characteristics, called nodes, in the activity theory model, the researchers were able to look for patterns of relationships in these nodes in the work activity of the teachers over the course of the study. All activity is object-oriented. The object of an activity system is something given and something anticipated by the subject, the teacher. In this study, the conceptual object of the teachers involved implementing the CBLE unit utilizing the innovation cluster as tools in order to develop described higher-order thinking abilities in their students. This was their initial motive for attempting innovation. At the end of the study the researchers identified their outcome, the actual learning potential resulting from the implementation as described by the teacher, and related that outcome to their initial goals. The study identified the innovation cluster as mediational objects inserted into the work activity to meet the goals of the educators but they were also identified this change process as potential sources of contradictions in their work activity (Wertsch, 1998). Additionally, using the AT Model to identify contextual and goal-related elements in the work activity of the teachers allowed the
39
researchers to design apriori data structures and design interviews, surveys and otherwise collect data on the relationships among the categories and later identify the contradictions resulting from the implementing of the innovation cluster.
Activity Theory Model

The top of the AT Model triangle represents the insertion of new conceptual tools into the work activity of the teacher, the innovation cluster. The middle of the triangle depicts the subject acting on the object of the activity. The subject arrow also identifies the announced outcome for the unit as described by the teacher. The bottom of the triangle depicts the AT identified contextual characteristics for each of the teachers individual work settings. These local context issues include (1) the rules of the work activity setting, (2) the community; those local people that support or detract from the innovation efforts of the teacher, and (3) the division of labor; those people that are necessary for the teacher to implement the innovation. The researchers operationalized all these categories for coding by using research in the areas of effective professional development for educators (Kortagen, 1993; Shulman, 1992; Schn, 1983), coding teachers cognitive beliefs as related to their motive, and anticipated outcome using Bereiters Scheme of Knowledge (Bereiter, 2002), coding their collaborative online professional development using Pfeiffer and Joness (1974) analysis of task and role behavior and coding the characteristics of the tools using Rogers (1995) and Barab (2001) to understand the mediational effects endemic in the tools themselves. The subject attempting change in a work activity system endeavors to appropriate external elements to aid her in meeting her object. However, these external elements create an imbalance in the system which results in contradictions that appear between the nodes of the activity system. Ilenkov (1977) and Engestrm et al. (1999) noted that change systems are internally contradictory and identifying these contradictions as they occur is of crucial importance in order to understand the efforts at changing the system. When an external force, or element, becomes part of a teachers work activity system, contradictions, or tensions, result between nodes of the activity system. Contradictions can also result between systems such as those tensions that occurred between the teachers work activity goals during their collaboration efforts. To develop the unit effectively required the teacher to resolve the contradictions occurring in her work activity which would ultimately result in an expansive learning process for the teacher (Engestrom, 1999). In the AT Model developed for this study, the researchers identified contradictions on the model using a solid broken arrow for unresolved contradictions, resulting in the lessening of the potential of the teacher to develop her object, or as a dashed broken arrow when the teacher identified the contradiction and resolved it, resulting in the increased possibility that she would meet her object goals. Figure 1 shows the completed AT Model for Teacher A in this study. The characteristics of her classroom environment, the contradictions that occurred in her attempt to innovate and whether they were resolved or unresolved were identified in each teachers AT model. The responses of the teachers to contradictions that occurred during implementation of the unit were then categorized as turning points. For this study they are defined as a behavior of the teacher in response to a contradiction that affected the implementation of the unitthe development of her object. In order to describe patterns of behavior over time, the researchers looked for indications of object transformation by way of these turning points, or ways in which the teacher delineated the object in a new way. Transformation of the object in a work activity system can occur in four ways: widening, narrowing, switching, and disintegrating. Widening of the object relates to the object expansion while narrowing refers to object contraction. Switching involves a shifting of the object in response to tensions in the system, and disintegrating refers to fragmenting or splitting of the object. For instance, if the teachers turning point response to a contradiction made the unit shorter, this is a temporal contraction in her object lessening her chance at effectively implementing the unit to meet her original goals. Correspondingly, using the AT Model and our coding for each aspect of the model, we were able to trace the response of the teacher back to the aspect of the implementation process that affected the contradiction. For instance, using our apriori coding structures, we could then identify if the innovations mediational characteristics, such as usability, accessibility, and functionality, that contributed to the contradiction and the teachers resulting turning point response. We also developed a Transformation Model which graphically depicts the four teachers AT Models in sequence over the course of the study. We were then able to look for patterns among all four teachers using three invivo issues that arose during data structuring. As a result, in our cross-case conclusions we can discuss the effect of the dialogic turning point responses of the teachers in the online professional development, the teachers
40
anticipated outcome in relation to their beliefs about learning and the characteristics of their individual school environment that strengthened or weakened the effectiveness of the teachers efforts at reform.
Figure 1. Activity System of Teacher A
Research Context The eMINTS (enhancing Missouri's Instructional Networked Teaching Strategies) program is a statewide effort to upgrade Missouri's classrooms in the 21st century by combining cutting-edge technology with first-class teaching. eMINTS establishes demonstration classrooms in Missouri's public schools to illustrate the use of technology in classroom instruction. Each eMINTS classroom gets a saturation rate of computers and supporting technology (see Table 1 below). eMINTS teachers are volunteers who have undergone training in technology implementation into inquiry-based learning environments. The eMINTS program presented the researchers with a unique opportunity to study teachers involved in both the design of a Constructivist Based Learning Environment (CBLE) and the implementation of emerging online technologies.
Participants The study participants were four eMINTS teachers who work with students in 4th and 5th grades in four different schools in Missouri. These teachers were originally part of a cohort of 45 teachers who were invited to participate in a pilot project called ePioneers at MOREnet (Missouri Research and Education Network). The teachers that volunteered for the ePioneers program all had 2 years of eMINTS training. They agreed to learn about a new online tool, Shadow netWorkspace (SNS) developed by the University of Missouri at Columbia College of Education, and to design and implement a CBLE unit that incorporated problem-based learning methods and that would be implemented simultaneously with other ePioneer classrooms across the state. The four teachers in this study voluntarily chose to collaborate with the researchers and each other in the design and
41
development of the problem-based unit called Improving Interstate 70. The group also represented 4 different sized communities with a diverse cultural background among the students.
Grade Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D 4th 4th 5th 4th
Table 1. Participants in the Study Community Students suburban rural urban mid-size city 12 boys and 10 girls, all Caucasian 12 boys and 12 girls, all Caucasian 7 boys and 10 girls, all Black or African-American 9 boys, 10 girls; 11 Caucasian, 8 Black or African-American
Technology Access As a part of their participation in the eMINTS program, each teacher has 12-14 Pentium3 LCD computers, a teacher workstation, laptop, a Smartboard and projector, a scanner, a color printer, and a digital camera.
The Innovation Cluster

The innovation cluster in this study included an emerging technology, Shadow netWorkspace (SNS), and a unit design framework for the CBLE unit called Improving Interstate 70. SNS served three purposes in this study. First, the teachers in this study collaborated to design the unit via online professional development provided by the researchers. They took advantage of SNS tools such as a discussion board, file management system, messaging, and chat rooms. Second, the students used SNS to collaborate, communicate, and share knowledge during the unit. Third, the researchers, who were also located in two different cities in Missouri, used SNS as a means to communicate about the study; collect, define, and assess data; and collaboratively construct meaning in the data collected. The second innovation, the unit design template, was used by the teachers in this study to design, plan and implement the I-70 unit collaboratively. It draws upon the theoretical and practical applications of constructivist learning principles. The CBLE unit, Improving Interstate 70, engaged students in the four classrooms in tackling a complex, open-ended problem taken from a real-world context. In this problem-based unit, students from the four Missouri schools collaborated to work as engineers to tackle this state-wide problem and propose an effective and efficient way to ultimately improve this major interstate highway which runs border-to-border in Missouri. The unit included three phases each one building on the previous and guiding students to develop a solution to the problem by working collaboratively with students in their class and online with students from the other three participating classes. In Phase 1 the students defined the problem setting by establishing the issues in the problem such issues as the cost issue, the environmental issue, the socioeconomic issue, etc. In Phase 2 the students are grouped totally online with students in the other classes researching these identified problem issues. These students communicate, disseminate material, revise work and present their group projects online using SNS. In Phase 3 the students bring their Phase 2 expertise back into their classrooms in order to identify a solution strategy. The learning goals of the unit were based on the Missouri Show-Me Standards, a set of academic standards that school districts can use to align curriculum and which serve as the basis for state-wide assessment on the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP). The teachers used the design template to collaboratively design and implement the unit online. Their main sources of collaboration during the unit were SNS chatrooms and discussion boards. Although the teachers had the same amount of technology, software and hardware, and the same amount of previous eMINTs training, they had differing beliefs about the learning potential resulting from the unit, differing abilities to collaborate and problem-solve as innovators and differing context issues that impacted their responses to the implementation of the unit. These issues were identified as invivo coding organizational structures and were used to query the data set of apriori AT categories to identify patterns in individual and cross-case responses to the contradictions that occurred during implementation of the unit.
Data Collection and Analysis

The data collected from the teachers included initial and follow-up interviews, transcripts from a phone conference and seven chatroom conferences, messages posted on discussion boards, a reflective questionnaire
42
related to their design of the unit and the principles of constructivist learning, an online journal, and documents the teachers produced related to the unit and technology as well as interactions with the other teachers during the phone and chatroom conferences, and ongoing contact with the researchers during the data collection process. Each case study included a description of the teachers experience of implementing the innovation cluster over a six week period, drawing upon multiples sources. The researchers identified the nodes of the teachers work activity system and created the AT Model for each teacher using the teachers voice in both her collaborative dialog with the other teachers and in her reflective dialog with the researchers. Next the researchers identified contradictions occurring in the development of the object, as perceived by the teacher, and categorized them as contradictions she could or could not resolve. Finally the researchers identified the turning points indicating how she responded to the contradiction and, subsequently, the way her response influenced the transformation of object, the manner of implementation. As a result the researchers could identify case by case contradictions and turning points which resulted in widening, narrowing or disintegrating of the object. Using the teachers original motive for implementing the reform, her overarching concepts about the type of higher-order learning the innovation cluster could potentially afford her students, the researchers could also ultimately define the overall transformation process for each teacher. Three progressive invivo questions were revealed during data structuring that aided the researchers in understanding how the teachers responded to the implementation process. These issues then were utilized to structure our findings and our conclusions. These progressive questions are: How does the individual teachers participation in collaborative professional development influence how teachers implement a CBLE unit integrating an innovation cluster? What factors in individual teachers school environment influence how teachers implement a CBLE unit integrating an innovation cluster? How do issues of practice and pedagogy and their beliefs about teaching and learning influence how teachers implement a CBLE unit integrating an innovation cluster?
Results
Teacher A Teacher A worked with 4th grade students in a suburban community. Her initial motive for developing the ePioneers I-70 unit was to increase the problem-solving abilities of her students by working with other students with multiple perspectives. Upon hearing an overview of the unit design framework, Teacher A identified a contradiction (shown as a lightning-shaped arrow in Figure 2) related to departmentalization in her grade level. A turning point occurred pre-unit when she responded to this contradiction and worked with the principal and other teachers to avoid departmentalizing during the unit. As a result of this turning point, she transformed the object, widening it to allow more time to meet the goals she had for student learning. She voiced the learning responses of her students in her post-unit interview: The students looked at the I-70 from many angles, local as well as statewide. They learned a lot about how MODoT attacks problems and works together to solve them. They also learned the importance of looking at what others have done to solve similar problems. They did this by studying case studies from various places. The project was set up in phases that flowed very well. Each phase provided the students with opportunities to help them understand the problem at various levels. A second contradiction appeared during Phase 2 of the unit related to the mediating tools, the unit design framework and SNS. Teacher A responded to the design of the unit in an email communication with the researchers stating her discomfort with her feeling that her students, working in groups online, were out of control. Teacher A expressed a dilemma with the unit design framework when she did not feel comfortable with her perceived inadequate background knowledge on the problem, the accessibility of online resources for her students, and the usability of resources to help her students develop conceptual understanding about the eight areas of expertise. The contradiction was between subject, her beliefs about learning and pedagogy, and the unit design. Her turning point was to move to control the learning processes by placing the responsibility for information gathering within her classroom by limiting students access to the internet resources thus giving her all access to resources. Consequently, she narrowed the object by lowering her expectations for developing students complex problem-solving responses despite her initial motive to develop those problem solving skills.
43
A third turning point occurred when she decided to forego the SNS chatrooms as a way for her students to interact online with other students and instead end Phase 2 and start Phase 3 without the other classrooms. She expressed a dilemma with the inconsistent accessibility of the SNS chatroom, preventing her students from interacting with students from other communities in Phase 2. She made this decision despite her initial motive to develop multiple perspectives about the Interstate 70 problem by interacting online with the other classes. She did not resolve this contradiction between subject and tools and narrowed her object in depth. Teacher A completed all three phases of the unit with her students. However, she struggled with overcoming her perceived issues of incompatibility of the innovation cluster with her concepts about teaching and learning. She used the resources in her community (e.g., the researcher and the other teachers in the collaboration) more for sharing her frustrations rather than using those community resources to resolve those contradictions. Despite her initial enthusiasm towards the potential of the innovation cluster to support her motive for participating in the activity, Teacher A consequently developed a favorable opinion about only part of the innovation cluster, SNS, but not the other part, the unit design framework. She stated that she would not do the unit in the future because it did not contain enough MAP content information.
Figure 2. Teacher As Work Activity System
She overall narrowed her object in depth by removing activities. She completed the unit but the learning goals for her students changed from the higher-order concept of understanding multiple-perspectives in authentic problem-solving to content delivery for standardized testing. The contradictions that occurred during Phase 2 of the unit were critical aspects of her decision to narrow her object and develop her unfavorable opinion to the problem-solving unit. She was unable to resolve the contradictions between her beliefs about teaching and learning and the CBLE unit framework which dramatically changed the interactions of the students and her role in her classroom.
44
Teacher B Teacher B worked with rural 4th grade students. Teacher Bs initial motive for implementing the unit was to develop the problem-solving abilities of her students by putting them in contact with students outside their rural culture in order to build multiple perspectives. When dialoging online with the other three teachers, she knew waiting to implement the unit until after all of the teachers finished administering standardized tests would severely reduce the amount of time she would have to complete the unit since she was the first of the four teachers to end the school year. This contradiction (shown in Figure 3) and her response, indicated as a turning point during collaboration, agreeing to the shortened schedule, led Teacher B to temporally narrow her object. This contradiction remained unresolved throughout the implementation of the unit and contributed to the fact that she could not finish the unit before the end of the school year thereby eventually disintegrating her object overall. Only one other contradiction arose in her work activity system, during Phase 2, when the lack of communication between Teacher B and the technology support staff in her building led her to believe her students could not access the SNS server. Her students were off SNS for over a week during Phase 2 when her students were supposed to use SNS in order to interact with students from other communities to develop multiple perspectives on the Interstate 70 problem. The researchers identified this turning point in a phone conversation with Teacher B during which Teacher B realized the problem was with the buildings firewall and not with the SNS server. When the problem was fixed, she had missed so much time online during the unit that she abruptly ended the unit without completing Phase 2 or initiating Phase 3. Despite these two dilemmas, Teacher B developed favorable opinions about both parts of the innovation cluster in terms of their potential to align with her motives. She noted in her final interview her opinions about the unit: I would really like to try the I-70 unit again. I would like to try other things like this. I mean I think the phases are really good, and I like that one of them was done in our school, so we would do it and be done. Another part, probably the shortest part, was out there with the other schools. Then, in Phase 3, you're back in your own school again. I mean you're in your community, then you're out there, and then you're back in your community. I like that idea. I liked the fact that there was a question in each phase guiding you. I would really like to do I-70 again. Her inability to resolve the community and division of labor contradictions resulted in her shortening the unit drastically and prevented her from meeting her initial goals. As a result she overall disintegrated her object. Her inability to resolve these contradictions because she did not communicate effectively with technology support personnel in her building and did not develop her goals in the collaboration with the other teachers meant that she could not develop the unit to meet her learning goals. In her post-unit interview she described the students responses to the unit: They almost had it. They were learning how to solve problems or learning how to work collaboratively. I don't think we quite made it. With another week, we could have. We had a lot to do and the year was almost over. We joked about adding another week to the school year, and they (the students) were all for it. I guess we tried to cram it in too fast, and I know that was my fault since everyone (the other teachers) wanted to wait until MAP was finished. It could have been a project that we could have spent a lot more time on
Teacher C Teacher C worked with 5th grade urban students. Teacher Cs initial goal for participating in the I-70 unit was pressure from her principal to participate. In her pre-unit interview she described her students communication skills as very low. She was unsure whether they would even be able to communicate with the other students online. After hearing an overview of the unit design framework, she identified a contradiction in her work activity system (see Figure 4): how departmentalizing for part of the day would limit the amount of time she had with her students to implement the unit. Her turning point response, which resolved this contradiction between rules and object, involved talking with the principal and other teachers about avoiding departmentalization during the unit.
45
Figure 3. Teacher Bs Work Activity System
Eventually, by talking with the researchers who designed the unit framework about the potential learning outcomes of the CBLE unit, she was better able to conceptualize the type of learning that could potentially occur with her urban students, a type of learning that she came to believe was more important than the rote learning she regularly employed to prepare students for a standardized test. Her realization of this contradiction between her beliefs about the learning potential of her students and the unit design tool resulted in a turning point which led Teacher C to widen her object by increasing the expectations she had for potential student learning outcomes resulting from the unit. Subsequently, Teacher C actively developed her unit by working with her online community to develop ideas for how to implement the unit more fully. This collaborative dialog helped Teacher C to resolve the contradiction between her beliefs about learning and the unit. As a result, she transformed the object, widening it through the collaboration with the other teachers and the researchers to develop advanced learning outcomes in her students. The previous contradiction between object and rules reappeared during Phase 2 when the science teacher asked to departmentalize again in order to obtain more grades from students to assign final grades for quarter. Despite her initial response to communicate her need to have the students all day, Teacher C decided not to talk with the science teacher or the principal to keep her students throughout the day. Because she did not resolve this contradiction, she did not have her students in her classroom throughout a significant part of the unit leading to a temporal narrowing of the object. She also experienced inconsistent access to the SNS chatroom server preventing her students from participating in all of the cross-classroom chatroom conferences during Phases 1 and 2. Even though she tried to suggest an alternative to the chatroom in order to maintain interaction among the four classrooms of students, the group of teachers did not pursue this idea. Teacher C response to this contradiction between tool and object was to narrow
46
the object. She decided not to continue using the SNS chatrooms. She finished Phase 2 and continued Phase 3 without the other classrooms. Teacher C, who initially participated in the innovation because of the authoritative decision-making of her principal, successfully completed all three phases of the unit. Despite the number of contradictions arising in her work activity system, Teacher C took advantage of local and online community resources to resolve contradictions and she developed a favorable opinion about both parts of the innovation cluster. In fact, she was enthusiastic in her final interview about how she ready to design a new unit for the next year that would incorporate both parts of the innovation cluster. They got a lot more out of it than I expected. They enjoyed the challenge. They did wonderful brainstorming and cooperative planning and decision-making. They enjoyed the chance to communicate with other students in Missouri. They felt empowered to work on a big problem that kids would not usually be involved in solving.
Figure 4. Teacher Cs Work Activity System
She overall widened her object by dramatically reformulating her own beliefs about the learning potential for her urban students as a result of implementing the problem-based unit and developing her community resources. This teacher, despite the challenges in her local context and her own initial limited beliefs in the learning potential of her students, benefited from collaborative professional development processes and used the resources in her local community ultimately developing new expansive concepts about the abilities of her urban students.
47
Teacher D Teacher D worked with 4th grade students in a small city in Missouri. Teacher Ds initial motive for implementing the unit was to use Shadow in her classroom. Teacher D explained in her initial interview how she felt the unit was too complex for her students, who were part of a class within a class inclusion model. She initiated email contact with the other teachers, hoping to change the unit design framework to include only Phase 1. Teacher D also expressed hesitation in working with other teachers to not only design a unit but also implement a unit collaboratively. She cited several examples from her own building that helped to develop negative feelings about not wanting to feel lock step with other teachers. Teacher D resolved this contraction (see Figure 5), shown as a break between subject and community, during the pre-unit phone conference when the teachers characterized their work more as a means for coordinating rather than collaborating on day to day parts of the unit. As a result she did decide to work collaboratively with the other teachers throughout the unit. However, teacher Ds role in the online collaboration during the unit tended to focus on anti-task behaviors such as dominating the dialog to vent her frustrations with the unit design framework and blocking the group from collectively resolving individual contradictions and group tensions. In her post-unit interview she stated, Had I done it alone, I would have known what I was doing and where I was going much more clearly. The main point of frustration was thinking I was letting down three other teachers and their classes if I did not live up to my end of the project. She ultimately completed all three phases of the unit in order to stay with the other teachers thus widening her object temporally. An initial contradiction occurred during the initial phase of the unit when SNS was not accessible in her building Teacher D worked with the researchers as technology resources to resolve this contradiction between the tool and the object. In doing so, she widened the object in depth, enabling her students to use the SNS chatroom which had been disabled by the building firewall. Teacher D, however, did not resolve two contradictions that arose in Phase 2, related to the inconsistent access to the SNS chatroom server by the students in other classes and her continued perception of the lack of learning potential for her students in that process. She believed the Phase 2 online unit activities were too difficult for her learning disabled students and decided not to participate in these activities, a contradiction between subject and rules. She also did not resolve a contradiction between the potential benefit of the online interactions developed in the unit and her concepts about the unit design template, a contradiction between subject and tool. Teacher Ds response to these contradictions was to remove the online group work aspect from the unit. This response resulted in a narrowing of the object, in depth, by changing the unit design framework and removing the students online collaboration. Teacher D did implement all three phases of the unit; temporally widening her object overall from her initial goal of implementing only Phase 1 something she initially said was unnecessary and too difficult for her students. However, she did not change her beliefs about the higher-order learning processes, problem-solving using technology, that the unit was meant to develop. She called the unit design and the student activities in Phase 2 and 3 useless in the post-unit interview. She developed a favorable opinion about only one part of the innovation cluster, SNS.
Cross-Case Conclusions
The researchers designed a Transformation Model (figure 6 below) that depicts the contradictions that occurred among all the teachers over the course of the study and helped the researchers respond to the three progressive issues that developed in vivo in this study: How does the individual teachers participation in collaborative professional development influence how teachers implement a CBLE unit integrating an innovation cluster? What factors in individual teachers school environment influence how teachers implement a CBLE unit integrating an innovation cluster? How do issues of practice and pedagogy and their beliefs about teaching and learning influence how teachers implement a CBLE unit integrating an innovation cluster?
48
Figure 5. Teacher Ds Work Activity System
Collaborative Professional Development Tertiary contradictions occur between different interacting work activity systems. Using the Transformation Model, created for this study, the researchers could look at the contradictions that occurred in the AT models of each teacher throughout the study in order to identify patterns between the four teachers. Additionally, the line across the top of the model shows the contradictions that occurred in the collaborative dialogs of the teachers as a widening or narrowing of the object, identified by widening or narrowing of the line. Using this model the researchers could look for patterns in the work activity of the four teachers using the three progressive issues. The researchers found that all the teachers narrowed their object during a difficult collaborative phase of the unit, Phase 2, when all their students were online in synchronous chatrooms. The online collaboration process available to the teachers, a weekly online chat, was insufficient to aid these teachers in resolving contradictions during this phase. Based on dialogic coding of task and role relationships, the teachers used the online forum as a means for coordinating activity or as a support system rather than to collectively act upon a shared object. During Phase 2 the teachers did not use their online chats productively to solve any problems occurring when the students were all in their online groups. Two teachers used the collaboration to solve problems at other times in the unit. When teacher C discussed the ideas used by Teachers A and B in their classrooms and viewed work samples uploaded to the SNS workgroup by students in those classes she subsequently developed similar activities for their students and resolved her belief contradiction and widened her object. Also Teacher Ds decision to stay with the online group meant that she resolved her belief contradiction about the length of the unit and completed all three phases. Teacher Bs decision to stay with the group and shorten her unit resulted in a narrowing of her ability to reach her goals. The collaboration process did not seem to affect the implementation of the unit for Teacher A. On one hand, the teachers all stated that the collaboration was not only beneficial but also necessary to implement a complex innovation in their classroom. On the other hand, participation in the collaboration created additional tensions for them.
49
The two teachers, A and B, who described in their pre-unit interviews several prior experiences working with other teachers in their building, did not resolve any contradictions as a result of the online dialogs. The other two teachers, C and D, both described feeling isolated in their school environments and did not describe prior experiences collaborating with the other teachers in their building. Both of these teachers resolved contradiction during implementation of the innovation cluster through the collaboration process. Collaboration is an important aspect of professional development for innovators in education. However, that collaboration process should be designed to develop problem-solving strategies and effective communication strategies for innovators.
Local Context Issues Secondary contradictions occur in the local context of the work activity setting and are depicted on the Transformation Model in the AT triangle made for each teacher. Three of the teachers in the study narrowed the object because of communication issues with people in their school environment who were important or necessary to successfully implementing the unit. Without a productive dialog about the teachers goals for the innovation with her local division of labor and community members, none of the teachers were able to resolve contradictions in their local setting. Developing a positive communication structure in their local context is an essential process for all the teachers implementing innovation in the classroom.
Beliefs about learning A primary contradiction is a pre-existing contradiction between the subjects overall goals, the motive and outcome. A primary contradiction is a negative tension between the concepts underlying the implementation of the object or the agents motive. In this study we used the teachers initial stated learning goals, coded hierarchically using Bereiters Scheme of Knowledge (Bereiter, 2001), and their stated ending learning goals to define overall development of the object. The researchers identified relationships between the pre and post levels in outcome in order to evaluate their relationship to the overall development of their object. The researchers coded these as hierarchical levels, a scale from 1-7, of the teachers philosophy of learning in order to identify changes in their overarching learning goals for their students as they stated them pre and post unit. Teacher A narrowed her overall object, stopping the chats among her students and the other students, because of a primary contradiction that occurred during implementation. Her original motive changed from the learning processes she stated in her initial interview, the development of multiple perspectives during problem-solving, a level 5 on the Bereiter scale, to delivery of content, a level 3. Teacher B disintegrated her object overall despite her high expectations for the learning resulting from the unit and her strong background developing innovative units. She was unable to resolve context-related contradictions despite her initial motives for innovation. She stated in her final interview that she had let her students down and she would advocate for her students more forcefully in the future. Her students were unable to develop multiple perspectives or suggest strategies to solve the problem. Her beliefs about the learning potential of the innovation were unrealized because she did not resolve two contradictions. Teacher C widened her object overall from her pre-unit motive for implementing the innovation cluster, initially stated as using the online dialog to develop the ability of her students to type a sentence, a level 2 on the coding scale, into her belief that her students could communicate collaboratively and develop problem-solving strategies in an authentic-based unit, a level 5. Her change was based on her process of identifying and overcoming her primary belief contradiction that her students were unable to develop advanced learning processes. She credited the professional development programs, online with the other teachers and with the researchers, with her ability to implement the unit more fully than she originally anticipated and ultimately changing her beliefs about the learning abilities of her students. Teacher D widened her object overall in order to collaborate with the other teachers but she did not change her beliefs about the learning processes afforded by implementing the unit and the CBLE unit design. A potential side issue resulting from this study could be the identification of the beliefs of the students in relationship to the beliefs of the teachers. When interviewed after the unit, the students in her classroom expressed a real interest, motivation and a deep understanding of the problem and its complexity which was totally in opposition to how Teacher D conceptualized the unit as being too difficult and boring for her students.
50
Figure 6. Transformation Model
Professional Development Implications In response to the first issue, the identification of contradictions in collaboration processes, the researchers found that teachers implementing innovation who are working in local contexts with little collaboration experiences can benefit by collaboration outside their local environment with teachers implementing similar innovative units. However, teachers who are already working at a high level of innovation in collaborative and supportive local contexts may not benefit, or can even reduce the effectiveness of their reform units, as a result of collaboration. As a result, collaborative professional development processes of innovative educators should be modified to fit the level of previous collaboration and innovation of the participating teachers. In response to the second progressive issue, the identification of contradictions in their local context, teachers who are implementing innovation should proactively develop communication support structures in their local community that allow them to resolve the eventual contradictions in their local activity setting. Training in anticipatory problem-solving and proactive communication processes are beneficial constructs for reform-based professional development models. In response to the third issue, the identification of contradictions in motive for innovation, teachers implementing units with innovative tools designed to develop advanced learning processes in their students can
51
have primary contradictions between their beliefs about learning and the pedagogical processes required for practical implementation of these mediational tools inserted into their practice. Identification of the gestalt theories of educators and the differences between the educators phronesis, their theory of learning, and espisteme, their actual practice in the classroom, (Korthagen, 1993) and reflection on these concepts (Schn, 1983) can benefit teachers implementing innovation by aiding them in addressing potential contradictions between their paradigm and their praxis as they implement new learning tools into their classrooms.
Research Implications There are several important aspects endemic to the design and implementation of this study. It was a study of innovative instructional reform efforts in classrooms integrating technology at a high level. Teachers implementing reform are by definition making changes and developing new learning environments. Many times they are implementing new tools in order to develop these challenging learning environments. Designing studies that attempt to identify the influence of defined aspects of the innovative teachers work activity through systemic and contextual analysis can aid educational researchers hoping to understand how teachers design and implement innovative learning environments. Educational studies based on research of complex human systems, studies of innovations, studies of productive professional development for educators and studies of learning and development can potentially help to clarify the intriguing mixture of concepts and skills necessary for educators to successfully implement innovative tools in order to reform their classrooms and subsequently help in the design of productive professional development programs for educational innovators.
References
Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2001). Constructing networks of activity: An in-situ research methodology. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10 (1&2), 63-112. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age, New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398. Bruce, B. C., Peyton, J. K., & Batson, T. W. (1993). Network-based classrooms: Promises and realities, New York: Cambridge University Press. Engestrm, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research, Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Engestrm, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamki, R. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Ilenkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays in its history and theory, Moscow: Progress. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill-Prentice Hall. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (4), 63-85. Korthagen, F. (1993). Two modes of reflection. Teacher and Teacher Education, 9 (3), 317-326. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press. Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technologys role in education reform: Findings from a national study of innovating schools, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press, 47-87.
52
Pfeiffer, J. W., & Jones, J. E. (Eds.) (1974). Role nominations - A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training (Vol. II), San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (1997). Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Washington, DC. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.), NY: The Free Press. Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. NY: Cambridge University Press, 111-138. Schn, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, NY: Basic Books. Shulman, L. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education. NY: Teachers College Press, 1-30. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language, Cambridge: The MIT Press. Web-Based Education Commission (2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Moving from promise to practice. Washington, DC. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action, NY: Oxford University Press. Wilson, B., Sherry, L., Dobrovolny, J., Batty, M., & Ryder, M. (2001). Adoption of learning technologies in schools and universities. In H. H. Adelsberger, B. Collis, & J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook of Information Technologies for Education & Training. New York: Springer-Verlag, 293-307.
53
Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with Invisible Others: Perceptions of Online Presence and their Relationship to Cognitive and Affective Learning, Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 54-62.
Learning with Invisible Others: Perceptions of Online Presence and their Relationship to Cognitive and Affective Learning
Tracy Russo
University of Kansas, Communication Studies Department 102 Bailey Hall, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045, USA trusso@ku.edu
Spencer Benson
University of Maryland College Park, Cell Biology and Molecular Genetics Microbiology Bldg, College Park, MD 20742, USA sb77@umail.umd.edu
Abstract
This study investigated the relationship between student perceptions of others in an online class and both affective and cognitive learning outcomes. Data were gathered from student survey responses and instructor evaluation of performance. Results from this study indicated significant correlations between student perceptions of the presence of other students in the class and scores on an attitudes scale and their satisfaction with their own learning. This finding demonstrates the salience of other students in the learning environment to affective learning outcomes. Perceptions of the instructors presence were significantly correlated with both affective learning and with student learning satisfaction. This outcome in an online class is consistent with findings on teacher immediacy literature in traditional classes and highlight the role of the teacher in establishing a learning environment. Results relative to cognitive learning showed that student reports of their perception of their own presence in the class were significantly correlated with performance in the class and with the grade they would assign themselves.
Keywords
Online presence, Affective learning, Cognitive learning, Immediacy
Introduction
As increasing numbers of college-level courses are developed for delivery via the World Wide Web, pressure grows to identify components of online learning environments that contribute to or support learning. Much of the research focus in online education has been on technical characteristics such as platforms, download speed, engaging links, streaming audio and streaming video. Evaluating the role of technology itself on learning has merit, but technology does not operate independently to create a learning environment. Student interaction online, like student interaction in face-to-face classrooms, is a critical component of the learning context. This appears to be especially true for one of the largest groups served by online classes, non-traditional or adult students, whose expectations are likely to include dynamic interaction with others and learning constructed through discussion (Brandt, 1997). Just as in face-to-face environments, the communication behaviors that students enact contribute to others perceptions of them and to the overall learning dynamic. Based on research about face-to-face classes, it can be argued that behaviors that support student engagement are likely to contribute to both positive attitudes about the class and to enhanced learning. In particular, student perceptions that others in the online course are immediate, present, or significant to the interaction may help establish an environment in which students attend to one another, share ideas, trust one another, and collaborate (Picciano, 2002; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). It may be argued that when students find online classes impersonal or isolating, they may disengage physically, by dropping the course or simply failing to finish it, or psychologically, by doing the minimum to complete the requirements but not engaging either the material or the other participants. Attrition rates in online classes frequently are cited as demonstration that the technical delivery system is inadequate for learning. Although many online classes have little turnover, Moore (1997) and Terry (2001) reported attrition rates as high as 50 percent in some online classes. Carr (2000) reported that online course completion rates are often 10 to 20 percentage points lower than in traditional courses. Because of its relationship to such outcomes, presence is a key concern of this study.
ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@massey.ac.nz.
54
Cognitive learning or comprehension and retention of knowledge (Christophel, 1990) is an important outcome for students, teachers, and institutions. In addition to cognitive learning, another important indicator of distance learning success is affective learning. Affective learning represents the attitudes students develop about the course, the topic, and the instructor. When students have positive affect about these targets, it can be argued that they will be more likely to complete courses, become involved intellectually with the material and the others in the online class, and be more satisfied. Affective learning involves student responses to the instructor, but other students online also make important contributions to the process and product of distance classes. A students sense of the salience or presence of others online, like her sense of face-to-face classmates, is a critical component of the learning environment (LaRose & Whitten, 2000). In an effort to extend knowledge of the effects of engagement on student outcomes in a distance learning environment, this study examined students perceptions of presence in an online graduate class in genetics and the degree to which these perceptions were related to both students learning and their attitudes about the course.
Mediated presence, perceptions of others in online interaction

Social presence most frequently has been considered predominantly a characteristic of a communication medium. Measuring presence as a function of the medium (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976), however, does not account for context, task, experience, or individual differences (Picciano, 2002). Recognizing the limitations of media-based conceptions of presence, scholars present alternative definitions. Lombard and Ditton (1997) frame presence as the illusion of nonmediation, wherein a user would respond as if the medium were not there. Researchers in distance education integrate human behavior to a greater degree. Tu (2002), for example, argues that social presence is the degree of person-to-person awareness that occurs in a mediated environment. Garrison, Anderson and Archer, (2000, cited in Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer, 2001) see presence as a projection of ones personality as well as of their ideas.
Immediacys relation to presence

The examination of presence in online learning is informed by the literature on immediacy, especially teacher and classroom immediacy. Anderson (1979) defines immediacy as a function of the psychological distance that a communicator puts between himself or herself and the object of his or her communication. Immediacy is related to presence in that both focus on the salience of individuals in communication. A person can convey immediacy or non-immediacy nonverbally (through such signals as physical proximity, stance, touching, relaxation, speech duration, voice quality, facial expression, and formality of dress) as well as verbally. Because most online classes do not include interactive video allowing teachers and students access to nonverbal immediacy behaviors, online participants must rely on verbal messages. Text-only interactions are not without signals of immediacy, however. Verbal immediacy is indicated by a variety of behaviors that include calling others by name, using personal examples, and soliciting personal views or opinions (Gorham, 1988). Grammatical and lexical measures that indicate affection, inclusion, and involvement also reflect verbal immediacy (Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968). Walther and Burgoon (1992) note that research in intimacy indicates that verbal or text components not only convey immediacy but may compensate for reductions in immediacy that are assumed in online contexts. In the online classroom where nonverbal cues often are not available, cues of verbal immediacy serve as the primary means of establishing psychological connection among participants. The primary focus of immediacy research in the classroom has been on teacher behaviors, but teachers are not the only salient participants in the learning environment. As LaRose and Whitten (2000) argue, students reinforce one anothers behavior through verbal comments. Further, other students may provide social and academic support online. Thus, student interaction may contribute to web course effectiveness. Although online courses are perceived by some researchers to be deficient in actual and perceived student interaction (BenbunanFich & Hiltz, 1998; Hiltz & Wellman, 1997; LaRose & Whitten, 2000), others have reported that online student discussions improved academic performance (Althaus, 1997). Hiltz and Wellman (1997) found that online discussions resulted in increased student satisfaction, a component of affective learning, in addition to being associated with achievement levels comparable to face-to-face classes. Given the concern of teachers, administrators, and students about the efficacy of online education, it is appropriate to examine outcome variables, in particular affective and cognitive learning, in light of the exigencies and characteristics of the asynchronous online learning environment. Students feelings of connection
55
in the classroom, especially their perceptions of the presence, immediacy, or salience of teachers and other students, clearly has the potential to influence these outcome variables. Therefore, this study of an entirely asynchronous graduate class in genetics begins by examining the levels of presence students perceive with RQ1: What levels of presence did students assign to the other students, the instructor, and themselves?
Learning outcomes - cognitive learning

Cognitive learning or the comprehension and retention of knowledge (Christophel, 1990) is an important outcome in most learning contexts. Teacher immediacy in face-to-face classrooms has been shown to be positively correlated with cognitive learning (Christophel, 1990; Gorham, 1988; McCroskey, Sallinen, Fayer, Richmond, & Barraclough, 1996; Menzel & Carrell, 1999; Rodriguez, Plax & Kearney, 1996). Cognitive learning is most frequently operationalized in research on online courses as course performance or as performance on selected student tasks. Given the difficulties in using performances, especially where in distance education the instructor has little or no control over when, how, or with whom a student works on a paper or exam, and issues of grade distribution, researchers have sought for alternative measures. Two approaches to selfassessment have been suggested as viable alternatives to grades for measuring learning. Sanders and Wiseman (1990) proposed that cognitive learning should be defined as how much students thought they had learned in a course. The second self-assessment approach, one known as learning loss (Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987; Witt & Wheeless, 2001), measures perceived student learning as a function of how much students thought they learned in the class subtracted from how much they thought they would have learned from the ideal instructor. Although the focus of these studies was on the communication behaviors of the teacher, the second research question in the present study examines the relationships between teacher presence behaviors and cognitive learning as well as the relationships between student perceptions of presence of both other students and themselves and cognitive learning: RQ2: How were perceptions of presence related to students cognitive learning in the course?
Learning outcomes - affective learning

Affective learning represents the attitudes students develop about the course, the topic, and the instructor. Although research demonstrates a consistent positive relationship of teacher nonverbal immediacy and student affective learning, the relationship between verbal immediacy and affective learning has been studied less frequently. Teacher immediacy in face-to-face classrooms has been shown across a number of studies to be positively correlated with affective learning (Kelly & Gorham, 1988; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990). Freitas, Myers and Avtgis (1998) further reported that teacher use of nonverbal and verbal immediacy behaviors were strongly correlated with student affective learning and, through it, with students' perceived cognitive learning. Addressing the frustrations experienced by online learners, instructors, and their institutions, LaRose and Whitten (2000) note the importance of connection in the learning environment in arguing that many Web courses fail to address the leading concern of learners lack of interaction with the instructor and fellow students. They further argue that learner motivation may suffer in Web courses because of a lack of teacher immediacy (LaRose & Whitten, 2000). Research has shown that in traditional classrooms, the immediacy of the teacher is an important correlate of affective learning and connection between student and teacher (Ellis, 2000). Although research has indicated that distant students expected less nonverbal immediacy from telecourse teachers (and presumably even less from asynchronous online teachers) than on-site students expected (Witt & Wheeless, 1999), teacher immediacy (Gorham, 1988; Freitas, Myers & Avtgis, 1998; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990) and intimacy (Ellis, 2000) remain important correlates of student satisfaction and affective learning. Research in online learning environments demonstrates the significance of perceptions of others. Perceptions that others in the class were present accounted for 60% of variance in overall learner satisfaction in one study of the use of a text-based medium (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997) and showed a significant positive correlation (r = .44) with satisfaction in another study of text-based computer conferencing (Gunawardena & Duphorne, 2000). Based on these findings, the third research question was developed to further examine the relationship between perceptions of presence and affective learning: RQ3: How were student perceptions of other students presence, the instructors presence, and their own presence related to their affective learning, that is, to their attitudes toward the course and subject?
56
The Context: Online Graduate Genetics

This study focused on a spring 2002 class, LFSC 630, Principles of Transmission Genetics: Historical and Modern Perspectives, taught by the second author at the University of Maryland. This class was part of a completely asynchronous online program offering a masters degree in Life Sciences to science teachers in high schools, community colleges and technical colleges. Twenty-two students were enrolled in this class, 16 women (70%), and seven men (30%). All but two were teaching full-time at the high school or community college level during the course. They accessed the class from a wide variety of locations; in addition to a number of students scattered across Maryland, they were located in Delaware, Maine, Florida, George, South Carolina, Wisconsin, California, the North Pole, and the Yukon. Several students had taken other courses in this program, but for about half this was their first online class. All but one student (95%) completed the class; family circumstances were responsible for the one incomplete. The class used the WebCT platform. Students accessed the materials from their homes or from their work locations. Course components were organized in ten one-week-long modules and included the following: Readings a genetics text, a biography of a significant geneticist and some journal articles Problems from the text and others from the instructor, posted weekly Online discussion in response to several content or content/thought questions posted each week; students were required to answer two questions weekly. At the end of each unit, the instructor posted a summary of the discussion and provided additional material or focus where necessary. An optional weekly synchronous chat, serving much like the instructors online office hours, where process and content questions were answered. The transcript of the chat was available on the course site for those who could not attend. This was significant because students were as many as five time zones apart. Teaching tips, responses to assignments, generated independently or in groups of varying sizes Writing assignments, including reflection papers Exams
Methods
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between perceptions of presence in an online class to affective and cognitive learning outcomes. Data were collected in several forms: through an end-of-course selfreport survey, a self-assessment of class performance, and, as an operationalization of cognitive learning, the percentage of points earned during the course. Perceptions of presence To assess perceptions of presence, students were asked to complete a survey at the end of the course. The survey asked them to rate on a scale of 1-5 (with 5 being the highest) the amount of presence they perceived in the other students and in the instructor, as well as to rate the amount of presence they believed they had in the class. The single items for each presence target were framed in the style of: As you came to the end of the class, what level of mediated presence did you perceive in the other students? Affective learning The survey also asked students to report their attitudes about the course. Seven single items asked for assessment of: student satisfaction with their learning, satisfaction with the online delivery system, the degree to which the delivery system contributed to their learning experience, the degree to which this online course was more enjoyable than others they have taken, the degree to which the class was a positive learning environment, and the degree to which the class had provoked heightened awareness of and reading in the topic area. In addition to the quantitative questions, several open-ended questions allowed students to identify the most and least helpful elements of the course. Cognitive learning Cognitive learning was measured in three ways. Two measures reflected self-assessment. A single item in the summative survey asking for student assessment of their learning was adapted from Witt and Wheeless (2001): Compared to what I might have learned, my learning in this course was (much more, more, the same as, less,
57
much less). The other assessment was a self-assigned grade. Students had the opportunity in the final exam to identify the grade they would give themselves for the course and write a paragraph explaining their own assessment. They were offered extra credit for providing that information. The third measure was the percentage of points earned during the class.
Results
The first research question sought to identify how much presence students perceived others students and the instructor had and how much presence they perceived they themselves had in the online class. Overall, students reported perceiving fairly high presence in the other students (mean = 3.94 on a scale of 1-5 where 5 was highest) and in the instructor (mean = 3.94). Their assessments of their own presence in the class was somewhat lower (mean = 3.71). There were no statistically significant differences in their assessment of the presence of the three targets. Table 1. Means and standard deviation for presence measures Mean Standard Deviation Other students 3.94 .87 Instructor 3.94 1.16 Self 3.61 .98
Research Question 2 asked to what extent these perceptions were related to students attitudes toward the course and the subject. Seven items were included in the summative course survey to answer this question. Students were asked to report their satisfaction with their learning, satisfaction with the online delivery system, the degree to which the delivery system contributed to their learning experience, the degree to which this online course was more enjoyable than others they have taken, the degree to which the class was a positive learning environment, and the degree to which the class had provoked heightened awareness of and reading in the topic area. In addition, consistent with assessments of affective learning (Anderson, 1979, Gorham, 1988) two items were used to evaluate perceptions about the course topic. Students also were asked to report the extent to which they had a heightened awareness of the course material, genetics, and were doing increased general reading about it. Each item was in five-level Likert form, generally anchored with a great deal and none. A scale called attitude reflecting attitudes about the class material and class experience was created from the seven survey items. The mean for this scale was 17.0 (range = 8-23, sd = 3.91). Reliability for this scale using Cronbachs alpha was .81. Table 2. Means and standard deviations of items in attitude scale Item Mean Standard Deviation Satisfaction with own learning 4.22 1.00 Satisfaction with delivery system 3.67 1.08 Delivery system added to course 3.11 1.13 Enjoyed this course more than others 2.72 .96 Course makes me more aware of topic 4.33 .59 Course makes me read more about topic 4.05 1.11 Course was good educational environment 3.28 1.07
Perceptions of instructors presence (r = .70, p = .001) were positively and statistically significantly correlated with the attitude scale variable. In addition, both perceptions of other students presence (r = .69, p = .00) and the instructors presence (r = .52, p = .03) were significantly correlated with student responses to the single survey item addressing satisfaction with their learning in this class. The third research question examined the relationship between perceptions of presence and student learning. Learning was operationalized in three ways, as the total number of points a student earned in the class, as student assessment of how much they learned, and as the grade students would assign themselves.
58
Although students did earn some points through participation, most of the points reflected performance on homework assignments and examinations. Mean percentage of points earned was 88 (range 68 108, sd = 9.9). Interestingly, self-assigned grades and points earned were not significantly correlated (r = .46, p = .07). Table 3. Correlations among variables Others Instr Own Points Perceptions of others presence .40 .18 -.01 Perceptions of instructors Presence .14 -.06 Perceptions of own presence .58* Percentage of points earned Self-rating of grade in class Attitudes about the class Student satisfaction with learning * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Rating .07 .33 .75** .46
Attitude .40 .70** .05 -.04 .32
Satisf .69** .52* .15 -.11 .00 .63**
Correlation analysis revealed a statistically significant positive relationship between student perceptions of their own presence and the points earned in the class (r = .58, p = .03), as well as between student perceptions of their presence and the grade they assigned themselves (r = .75, p = .00). In self-assignment of grades, the range of responses was 2 to 4 on a 4-point scale, with 4 representing a grade of A. The mean was 3.3 and the standard deviation was .54. Interestingly, the self-reported measure of learning was significantly correlated with students self-assigned grade (r = .64, p = .01). Scores on this item ranged from 2 to 5 on a 5-point scale, with a mean of 3.2 and a standard deviation of .81.
Discussion
Results from this study demonstrate the importance of the presence or immediacy of the other participants in an online class to affective and cognitive learning outcomes. Perceptions both of the presence of others and of the instructor were significantly correlated with scores on affective learning and particularly on student satisfaction with their own learning. In emphasizing the importance of connection with others in online classes, these findings support the arguments of Rourke et al. (2001) and Oren, Mioduser and Nachmias (2002) that social presence is necessary for development of an effective community of inquiry. Because a feeling of connection may encourage students to engage the material as well as the other people, this also may increase the likelihood that students will complete online classes. Findings of this study also address LaRose and Whittens (2000) concerns that online classes may fail to connect students with one another and similarly may offer fewer opportunities for connection between teachers and students. Although perceptions of instructor presence were strongly related in this study to both attitudes and satisfaction, it is significant to note that satisfaction with learning was correlated more highly with perceptions of others (r = .69) than with perceptions of the instructor (r = .52), emphasizing the considerable role for the other students in the class. As LaRose and Whitten (2000) have noted, other students serve as important referents in online classes. In addition, online interaction among peers offers more than academic exchange. Social support and content-related interaction both can support idea development, affirmation, and encouragement. In this class, student postings revealed the importance of online interaction as a means of ambiguity reduction. Students posed procedural and content questions, provided answers (or suggestions), thanked one another for ideas, and provided encouragement. This study makes an important contribution in demonstrating the presence of a relationship that is often posited or assumed. As Hiltz and Wellman (1997, p. 2) argued, virtual, or electronic, communities involve sociability, emotional support, and a sense of belonging as important ends in themselves, though they are often accompanied by exchanges of information and services. Opportunities for students to connect with one another and the instructor in this class, through discussion boards, synchronous chat, and a shared context, were statistically significantly related to positive feelings about the course. Student comments in open-ended questions on the summative survey and the open-ended self-assessment question in the final exam further demonstrate the role of student interaction as key to a positive online learning environment. One student noted in identifying the most useful element of the class, The discussion problems were the most helpful because you could see other
59
students responses and ideas. Another wrote, Online discussions have been the best part and learning tool of all my online classes thus far. And yet another noted, The other students were the best element of this course. The discussion boards were one of the best tools of the course. Consistent with the literature on teacher immediacy (Christophel, 1990; Freitas, Myers & Avtgis, 1998; Gorham, 1988; Kelly & Gorham, 1998; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990), perceptions of the instructors presence were significantly correlated with both the attitudes scale and student satisfaction with their learning. The role of teacher makes the instructor especially visible and especially important in establishing the tone and initial norms for the learning environment. This study provides clear evidence in an online class for this relationship. The relationship of students reported perceptions of their own presence with the outcome variables was especially compelling. Students perceptions of the presence they had in the class were significantly correlated with the teachers assessment of their performance in the class, with the grade they would assign themselves, and with their attitudes about the course. The strongest relationships with perceptions of own presence were with performance, both as assessed by the instructor and as evaluated by the students themselves. It may be argued that this reflects the effect of self-efficacy or self-confidence (Jackson, 2002). Students who saw themselves as performing effectively may also have felt their contributions to the online discussion were valuable or salient, thus they assigned themselves high presence ratings. This result may also reflect more engagement among those students whose interest level, and possibly their effort, was higher. A third alternative is much less likely. The instructor might have seen these students as more engaged and evaluated their performance more highly. Because most points in this class represented solutions to genetics problems and therefore were largely objective, individual evaluation played a very small role. More investigation of students assessment of their own presence and its relationship to outcomes is in order.
Implications for instructors and designers These findings systematically demonstrate the significance of student-student as well as teacher-student interaction in online classes. While instructor immediacy or presence was related in this study to attitudes and satisfaction, as would be expected, this study highlights the importance of interaction among students to attitudes about the class. This study provides evidence for incorporating interaction among students into class design. This may be important to instructors, facilitators and course designers who are discouraged from requiring and/or supporting interaction. Facilitating interaction is time-consuming and often demanding. It is easy to argue that interaction is not required for some subjects, some contexts, or some students. As Terry (2001) has found, however, even in some of the classes where interaction might be considered unnecessary, specifically those focused on math, attrition rates are particularly high. This suggests an opportunity to support student learning and performance through student-student interaction in essentially any online class. Establishing and supporting opportunities for students to establish both their own salience and provide social and material support in online classes, especially by working with the material together, offers important tools to enable heightened performance. The finding in this study of a statistically significant relationship between students performance and their perceptions of their own presence in the class adds weight to the argument for interaction. The ability to work online with other students, offer ideas, ask for support, and solve problems also allows students to articulate their understanding and to work through the material with an eye to others. This may better prepare them for assignments and exams, thereby improving their overall performance. This relationship merits further attention.
Limitations and directions for future research This study is limited by the small sample size and by the homogeneous nature of the sample. More importantly, however, the findings reflect the difficulty of operationalizing and measuring presence. In the end, presence is what people perceive it to be, but potential inconsistency in how students interpreted the presence items may have influenced the findings. A multifaceted presence instrument, one that examines presence with more than single items and addresses the construct more by evaluating specific behaviors rather than a global effect, would provide richer data. Future research should address operationalization both of presence and of performance. Examination of additional types of online classes with other types of students also would provide opportunities to refine measurement and evaluate validity across contexts. Another useful extension of this research would examine change in perceptions of presence over time, as classroom dynamics develop. It is increasingly clear
60
that the degree to which online students feel that they are engaged with others influences classroom outcomes, and refinement of our understanding of both process and product of online presence is in order.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on work undertaken as part of our participation in the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
References
Althaus, S. L. (1997). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with online discussions. Communication Education, 46, 158-174. Anderson, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. Communication Yearbook, 3, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 543-559. Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (1998). Educational applications of CMC: Solving case studies through asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4. Retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue3/benbunan-fich.html. Brandt, S. D. (1997). Constructivism: Teaching for understanding of the Internet. Communications of the ACM, 40, 112-118. Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (23), Retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://chronicle.com/free/v46/i23/23a00101.htm. Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-340. Ellis, K. (2000). Perceived teacher confirmation: The development and validation of an instrument and two studies of the relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Human Communication Research, 26 (2), 264-292. Freitas, F. A., Myers, S. A., & Avtgis, T. A. (1998). Student perceptions of instructor immediacy in conventional and distributed learning classrooms. Communication Education, 47 (4), 366-373. Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education, retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://communitiesofinquiry.com/documents/CTinTextEnvFinal.pdf. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computermediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11, 8-26. Gunawardena, C. N., & Duphorne, P. L. (2000). Predictors of learner satisfaction in an academic computer conference. Distance Education, 21 (1), 101-117. Hiltz, S. R., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. Communications of the ACM, 40, 44-48. Jackson, J. W. (2002). Enhancing self-efficacy and learning performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70 (3), 243-255. Kelly, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37, 1978-207.
61
LaRose, R., & Whitten, P. (2000). Re-thinking instructional immediacy for web courses: A social cognitive exploration. Communication Education, 49 (4), 320-338. Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. B. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 3 (2), retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/lombard.html. McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., & Barraclough R. A. (1996). Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Education, 45, 200-211. Menzel, K. E., & Carrell, L. J. (1999). The impact of gender and immediacy on willingness to talk and perceived learning. Communication Education, 48 (1), 31. Moore, G. (1997). Sharing faces, places and spaces: The Ontario Telepresence Project Field Studies. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen, & S. B. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-Mediated Communication, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 301-321. Oren, A., Mioduser, D., & Nachmias, R. (2002). The development of social climate in virtual learning discussion groups. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3 (1), retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://muse.tau.ac.il/publications/77.pdf. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6 (1), retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v6n1/v6n1_picciano.asp. Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 10, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 574-590. Rodriguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication Education, 45, 293-305. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous textbased computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14 (2), retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol14.2/rourke_et_al.html. Sanders, J. A., & Wiseman, R. L. (1990). The effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning in the multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 39, 341353. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications, London: John Wiley. Terry, N. (2001). Assessing enrollment and attribution rates for the online MBA. T H E Journal (Technical Horizons in Education), 28 (7), 64-69. Tu, C.-H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International Journal on E-Learning, 1 (2), 34-46. Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 19 (1), 50-88. Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication,. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. W. (1999). Nonverbal communication expectancies about teachers and enrollment behavior in distance learning. Communication Education, 48 (12), 149-154. Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2001). An experimental study of teachers' verbal and nonverbal immediacy and students' affective and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50 (4), 327-342.
62
Hendrix, E. (2005). Permanent Injustice: Rawls' Theory of Justice and the Digital Divide. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 63-68.
Permanent Injustice: Rawls' Theory of Justice and the Digital Divide

Elizabeth Hendrix
The University of Alabama Instructional Leadership 2706 31st Avenue Way Northport, AL 35476-3610 USA ehendrix@cobra.simplecom.net Tel: +1 205 339-1105
Abstract
There are more than 700 million current Internet users, but the world population is approximately 6 billion (Trend 2001), indicating that computer technology is used by less than one-eighth of the population. Computers are becoming common tools in schools, often viewed as a democratic panacea despite the costs involved and despite the fact that the majority does not have access to computers and/or the Internet; this creates a digital divide for students, in which some are more equal than others. Educators, thinking they have solved the digital divide issue, create a placebo effect because most do not consider students' issues of transportation to the library, lack of funds for a home computer, or the time it takes to navigate an available public computer and Internet connection. In this paper, the author argues that Rawls theory of justice does not work in practice with regard to technology, or as a way to solve the digital divide and the inequalities in school funding. She argues that another ethical theory should guide technological funding and policies in schools, embracing theories by Levinas, Noddings, Davis, Freire, Nkrumah, and Buber, in order to open scholarly discussion on the issues of injustice and technological funding inequities.
Keywords
Digital divide; Rawls; Inequalities; Funding; Educational technology
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in "Letter from Birmingham Jail" Schools are microcosms of the world in which we live, and nothing represents this microcosmic experience better than the lunchroom on any given school day. As a child who despised lunchroom food, I can recall many instances when my friends and I would trade lunches and evaluate who had a better meal. Many times, during these exchanges, at least one lunch would not be satisfactory, and my friends would poke fun at the lunch and its consumer. We were all together in the cafeteria, yet even at an early age, we began to segregate ourselves according to race, class, and gender, even subconsciously. To paraphrase George Orwell, "all lunches are equal, but some lunches are more equal than others." In this vein, educators and administrators would like to believe that all schools are created equally, but in reality, some schools are "more equal" than others, especially in regard to technology. Injustices and inequalities in our schools are as commonplace as school lunches, textbooks, and big yellow buses; these discrepancies exist in our schools on an everyday basis (Anyon, 1997; Bell, 1992; Cooper & Weaver, 2003; Kozol, 1991; Trend, 2001; Valenzuela, 1999). Schools even perpetuate racism, classism, and sexism now through technological means (Cooper & Weaver, 2003; Trend, 2001). The grim realities of inequities in school funding are conspicuous, and the funding simultaneously masks and unmasks the injustices, which become so ubiquitous that they are being ignored and accepted. Teachers often assume that students have access to computers at home or at a public library, but they fail to consider the fact that many students cannot afford a computer, and many libraries are just as technologically under funded for disadvantaged students. Educators think that they have solved the digital divide issue. However, they have just created a placebo effect because most teachers and administrators do not consider the students' issues of transportation to the library, their lack of funds for a computer at home, and the time that it takes to wait for and navigate an available computer, printer, and Internet connection. In regard to technology and schools, administrators and educators embrace John Rawls' theory of justice, wherein economic inequalities are embraced supposedly to benefit everyone, but in practice as well as in funding, justice and equality do not exist. In this article, I challenge educators to think about their actions with regard to funding, homework assignments, and their curriculum materials, and I hope that I open a chain of discussions challenging their assumptions about their students access to computers and the Internet. In addition, I want these educators to consider socioISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@ieee.org.
63
economic class issues when they teach, especially with regard to technology. For instance, my niece and nephew often have homework where Internet research would be advantageous, even at times essential, but they do not have Internet access at home. Although the school library is available after school for them (with several older computers and programs), my niece and nephew are required to get on the bus immediately after school because their parents are not able to pick them up, and they live over half an hour away from their school. The family vehicles are old and unreliable and are only used for work and grocery shopping. The children are aware of class issues because they have limited technological possibilities when compared to their peers, and at times, they even argue that homework is unfair. With regard to their restrictions involving the Internet, homework as a whole is not fair for them, but none of their teachers considers their situation and the costs of computers and the Internet. Their teachers assume that every child has equal access to the World Wide Web (or should it be World White Web?), but do they really have the same access and opportunities now? According to Rawls, theoretically, justice is fair when autonomy and a "veil of ignorance" exist, under which all members make beneficial decisions for every party, and society maintains justice because of this "veil of ignorance." Without any knowledge of positions, income, or status, under this veil, people would logically engage in decisions that help themselves, and injustice would not exist because it would not be reasonable under the "veil of ignorance." Two concepts direct these decisions: 1.) Everyone is supposed to have an equal right to basic liberty, and 2.) Inequalities are just when they are for everyone's advantage, and with Rawls' "difference principle," the inequalities should only benefit the least advantaged in society. Within "A Theory of Justice," Rawls proclaims, "But there is no injustice in the greater benefits earned by a few that the situation of persons not so fortunate is thereby improved" (p.12-15). This theory of justice, wherein inequalities exist for just ends, especially for the least favored, is like an oxymoron in practice, just injustice, because in reality, the disadvantaged remain marginalized. How is this unequal justice possible though? How is it that injustice does not exist when one group has more opportunities and funding than another group? Rawls answers this and informs us, "Injustice, then, is simply inequalities that are not to the benefit of all" (p. 63). Thus, as long as everyone benefits, then the disparity in benefits is acceptable and even just. However, how does this difference in advantages truly help everyone? Can injustice and inequalities really create just ends or really help marginalized, disadvantaged groups? If one group has more opportunities and financial support, especially concerning technology, then one group has less, and the inequalities and injustice become conspicuous. In regard to technology, one group white, wealthy, suburban students clearly has more opportunities and advantages in regard to computer access and usage than the inner-city group, the students who are primarily African-American and Latino (Cooper & Weaver, 2003; Trend, 2001). Administrators and educators perpetuate injustice and inequalities because of funding issues, and the inequities are conspicuous when one contemplates the minority students' disparity in technology levels. Despite the digital gap that exists at school and at home for these most disadvantaged students, school leaders maintain a "just stance" and argue that the technological inequalities are fair because all students supposedly have the same access to computers and the Internet currently. However, with more critical reflection, this equal access does not actually exist. My niece and nephew do not have the same technological access, and other marginalized students do not have the same access to computers at home and at school either. Thus, this technological injustice and digital divide is a threat to justice, especially when educators and administrators perpetuate this injustice by positing it as fairness. Trend (2001), in Welcome to Cyberschool: Education at the Crossroads in the Information Age, uncovers the divide between poor and rich students in technology: Rather than democratizing education, technology is widening the gap between wealthy and poor institutionsas those with the least resources are least likely to afford technology. Schools that comprised more than 90 percent of students of color had a student-to-computer ratio of 17-to-1 in 2000, compared with the national average of 10-to-1. The historic lag in the introduction of computers into many rural and urban schools is yet another symptom of the savage inequalities in school funding from district to district. These inequities established the framework for differentials in computer access and usage that favored middle-class and wealthy students, contributing to what is now termed the "World White Web." (p. 145) Emphasizing the lack of democracy in our schools, Trend posits the technological gap and the computer ratio differentiation, which adds another layer in the injustice and another catalyst for the "World White Web." Here, Trend reveals the disparity in the number of computers, but he fails to mention possible, almost certain, inequities in the quality and overall speed and usefulness of these computers. Technology advances rapidly, and computers become outmoded at an alarming rate. The disproportionate numbers only indicate the discrepancy in
64
computer availability in schools. Thus, the incongruity of computer worth is yet another unexplored layer of this phenomenon of technological just injustice in the academic environment. My niece and nephew have older computers to use at their school, and there is never a discussion about the quality of computers in the various school districts in my state. In the wealthier school districts, some students have new computers and new technological programs added to their schools each year, but this is not a possibility at my niece and nephews school now. Their computers have not been updated in several years, and they wont be updated anytime in the near future because of school budget cuts and the lack of funding. However, when my brother asks about the school computer programs and the students access to the Internet, teachers as well as administrators tell him that their technological tools are state of the art, and they are giving every student the same opportunities to succeed and advance. However, are these teachers really providing this equal opportunity and state of the art technology when other schools have more computers, which are newer, and have better, faster equipment and programs? I dont think that this technological issue pertaining to quality and usefulness is even discussed or acknowledged. As a side note, when one considers the rate at which computer technology advances, and new computers are outdated within six months, one must wonder about poorer schools that have computers which are five to ten years old (or more), and whether or not these tools are indeed state of the art. Thus, while some students have more equal technological tools at their disposal, some students are falling behind, and injustice follows without question or critique. I wonder if many administrators and educators are really aware of these socio-economic issues in regard to technology when they apply for grants, assign homework, and argue about funding needs. In my previous experiences with my niece and nephew, the injustice is masked and ignored altogether in their school, and unfortunately, the lesson for my niece and nephew is one of just injustice. In addition to Trend's analysis concerning the disproportionate amount of computers in wealthier schools, the Educational Testing Service 1999 study, "Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools," revealed that poor students had half the access to computers in the classrooms compared to wealthier students. Why is this the case? Could racism, sexism, and classism serve as vehicles for funding and technological inequities, which are not addressed in our schools? Latimers 2001 report, "The digital divide: Understanding and addressing the challenge" from the New York State Forum for Information Resource Management, argues that societal gaps create the digital divide, but the digital divide may widen existing social gaps and even create new ones (p. 8). Educators are creating a larger social gap between the rich and the poor, chiefly within technology now, despite the fact that they justify the inequities in funding, technology, and programs. Injustice and inequalities clearly exist in our schools and within technology, and these discrepancies do threaten justice and make it an impossibility so long as these disparities are perceived as being fair and right. Students are denied the right to technological knowledge, and administrators and educators ignore these divides, so long as the wealthy students and parents are satisfied. Rawls theory of justice may work in theory, but it does not work in practice, especially in regard to school funding and technology, because minority students are hurt as a result. Educators and administrators misuse Rawls theory to maintain injustice and inequities in our schools. For school reform to occur, this "miseducation" of minorities must end. How wide is this "miseducative" and funding gap? Paraphrasing Lonnie Harp, Ron Renchler (1992) explains, "[...] the poorest school district in Texas spent $2,150 per pupil while the wealthiest spent $14,514, or 6.75 times more, per pupil. New York's wealthiest district spent $19,238 per pupil in 1989-90; its poorest district spent only $3,127 per pupil. In most states, two to five times more per pupil is spent in the wealthiest districts than in the poorest districts" ( 2). How can an equal education truly exist when funding incongruities are this conspicuous? This gross funding disparity perpetuates the notion that some schools are "more equal," despite the fact that some funds are "more equal" than others. Jonathan Kozol (1991), in Savage Inequalities: Children in Americas Schools, uncovers the fact that the "surburbanites," wealthy parents and school donors in the suburbs, do not believe the funding inequities are unjust. Echoing Rawls theory of justice, the suburbanites ask, "So long as every child has a guarantee of education, what harm can it really be to let us spend a little more?" (p. 222). Educators, as well as these suburban parents, do not question funding inequalities, and some even defend the injustice, pitting poor students against wealthier students in a battle for finances and fairness, especially with computer technology. These parents and educators profess equality with "every child" and "guarantee of education;" however, they really advocate inequalities. While parents and educators manipulate Rawls theory of justice, they state, "[...] what harm can it really be to let us spend a little more," herein the very discourse implies "more equal."
65
The problem is that educators and parents alike, according to Jean Anyon (1997) in Ghetto Schooling: A Political Economy of Urban Educational Reform, "regard ghetto children to be at best expendable, and at worst, appropriate targets" (p. 161). Why are these children referred to as ghetto children though? Why can they be targets and "expendable?" Ghetto here in the technological arena is not limited to race alone; indeed, class position plays more of an overreaching role (in conjunction with race, rather than in addition to) in the determination and subsequent exploitation of these supposed expendable targets. My niece and nephew are among many children in Alabamas public schools (as well as schools all over the South, all over the United States) who grow up in an environment where computer technology is a luxury, not a given, and where college is a dream rather than an expectation. It is this more economically disadvantaged environment, not necessarily race alone, which places students like my niece and nephew in the position of becoming at best expendable, and at worst, appropriate targets. Children such as these grow up in a public school environment where the state and federal governments feel (quite blatantly under closer examination of funding discrepancies) that computer technology closer to state of the art, which would more adequately prepare these children for college and other further academic studies, is unnecessary, or worse wasted. The message for these children is that they must be expendable and targets because they are the ones who do not have school districts or states spend[ing] a little more. The difference and discrimination involved with these children in their own schools on a daily basis is palpable. In The Universal Right to Education: Justification, Definition, and Guidelines, Spring (2000) sets forth his idea of students rights in education, and the seventh right for every student is to have, "Knowledge of the use of electronic calculators and computers" (p. 128). However, with inequalities in funding and technology, poor students do not have this "universal right." These financially challenged students in urban and rural schools are falling behind their suburban and wealthier counterparts in technology because of funding inequities. The majority of suburban students are white, and minority students are more predominant in inner-city schools, wherein funding and technology discrepancies occur. In addition, Trend (2001), focusing on inequities in Californian schools, reports: In California, more than 80 percent of African American, Latino, and Native American students find themselves in the poorest fifth of schools, where more than 25 students share each computer. Historically, these schools were the last to receive computers and last to become wired to the Internet. These are schools where every dollar committed to technology represents a dollar subtracted from somewhere else, where choices have to be made between computer workstations and roof repairs. Clearly, differences in digital literacy and technological competence must be linked, at least in part, to broader issues of school inequality. (p. 33) Minority students are the last to receive technology and funds, and they are struggling to compete for jobs, which are increasingly more technical. Why is it that these students are the last to receive computer workstations and wiring for the Internet? Why are inequities in funding and technology acceptable? When administrators have to choose between fixing a roof and incurring technological expenses, the choice becomes no choice; it is masked, and justice becomes hidden. What factors contribute to this masking? Could issues of race and gender be significant in these disparities? According to Cooper and Weaver (2003), within Gender and Computers: Understanding the Digital Divide, technological inequalities are based on gender and racial issues: Yet, access to training in IT [Informational Technology] is not equitable and some people have greater access than others [do] with the likelihood depending on the income, racial, and gender categories of which people are members. White Americans are more likely to have access to computers and the Internet than African-Americans. Males have more access than females, and wealthier Americans have more access regardless of race and gender. (p. 3) White males have more means and more access to technology training, which gives them advantages over minority students in both academic and career fields. A white patriarchal hierarchy serves as the framework for technology as well as school funding, which excludes poor minorities. However, socioeconomic status may be more of a significant factor for inequities in technology than race or gender because of the immediate expense involved with technology. Though race, gender, and class are inextricably linked in the hierarchy of oppression, white males may benefit from technology more so than marginalized groups because of their overall class position. Why is it that inequality in funding and technology hurts the minority students, enforces the status quo of injustice for these groups, and renders forth advantages for white males at the expense of the other students
66
rights? Rawls notion that inequalities are acceptable as long as everyone benefits is unjust, and is in this case, a detriment to the minority students because, despite their funding, they will never have the same amount of funding as the wealthier students, unless there is major funding reform. Thus, they will never have the opportunities to succeed that the suburban students do, especially in regard to technology without proper funding. The questions that educators should be positing are: How can we bring to the surface the impact of the digital divide, which is hidden under the guise of true democratic education? How can we change this injustice and inequity in technology and funding? What are the deeper implications of the discrepancies that minority students face? How can unjust school policies, wherein one group has more, ever benefit everyone? What are educators to do? As long as educators and parents justify the inequalities with masks of ignorance, injustice will be perpetuated, and the minority students will fail to succeed, while their wealthier counterparts will. Educators need to reexamine how Rawls theory of justice is used in practice and in their schools, especially in regard to technology and school funding, and they need to embrace a more practical ethical theory, which is just to all students. Trend (2001) suggests applying Levinas ethical theory, which is premised on respect and recognizing the other, to funding and school technology that we currently have, despite the fact that Levinas theory is largely absent. If educators use ethical works, without manipulating them, such as Bubers "I and Thou" ethic, Davis "lifting as we climb," Freires "conscientization," Levinas "Face and Responsibility for the Other," Nkrumahs "consciencism," and Noddings "ethic of care," then inequities in funding and practice may be resolved, and the threats of injustice will be assuaged (Buber, 1923; Davis, 1988; Freire, 1970; Levinas, 1985; Nkrumah, 1964; Noddings, 1984). Since these ethical frameworks are not premised on unjust principles, wherein one group has more, these scaffolds may hold the promise for building more equal access and funding for all students, instead of one select group. In order to move towards a just technological school environment, first educators should recognize themselves in the faces of their students; they should take on the responsibility of acting ethically and with social justice in mind for all of their students. In addition, they should model and use Noddings ethic of care to lift their students up, in spite of minority issues such as race, gender, sexuality, disability, or socio-economic class status, and they should be aware of these issues and even make their students more conscious of them, so that their students can succeed and feel as though school is as fair and equitable as possible. Without active scholarly discussion, these issues will never be contemplated, much less alleviated, and my hope is that this educational discussion continues, so some students are not more equal. If we can fully bring the digital divide out from behind the mask of just injustice, we might be able to see students success grow, as the number of Internet users certainly will in the future. In the end, some students, like my niece and nephew, should not feel that homework is unfair because of their limitations, especially with regard to technology because of teachers and administrators assumptions that everyone has equal access to the Internet and computers. In the future, we need to remedy the notion of being "more equal" within our schools, and students should discover justice and equality as commonplace as lunchrooms, textbooks, and big yellow buses.
References
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform, New York: Teachers College Press. Bell, D. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism, New York: Basic Books. Buber, M. (1923). I and thou. In Gregroy, W. & Giancola, D. (Eds.), World ethics, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 128-131. Cooper, J., & Weaver, K. (2003). Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Davis, A. (1988). Radical perspectives on empowerment for Afro-American women: Lessons for the 1980s. In Gregroy, W. & Giancola, D. (Eds.), World ethics, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 266-269. Educational Testing Service (1999). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.
67
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. In Gregroy, W. & Giancola, D. (Eds.), World ethics, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 286-288. Harp, L. (1992). School-finance suits look beyond money to issues of quality. Education Week, 11 (39), 1-2. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in Americas schools, New York: Harper Perennial. Latimer, C. (2001). The digital divide: Understanding and addressing the challenge, retrieved January 4, 2004 from http://www.nysfirm.org/documents/html/whitepapers/nysfirm_digital_divide.htm. Levinas, E. (1985). The face and responsibility for the other. In Gregroy, W. & Giancola, D. (Eds.), World ethics, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 157-160. Nkrumah, K. (1964). Consciencism. In Gregroy, W. & Giancola, D. (Eds.), World ethics, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 234-236. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. In Gregroy, W. & Giancola, D. (Eds.), World ethics, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 338-342. Provenzo, E., Brett, A., & McCloskey, G. (1999). Computers, curriculum, and cultural change: An introduction for teachers, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Renchler, R. (1992). Financing equity in the schools, retrieved January 3, 2004 from http://www.ericdigests.org/1992-1/equity.htm. Spring, J. (2000), The universal right to education: Justification, definition, and guidelines, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Trend, D. (2001). Welcome to cyberschool: Education at the crossroads in the information age, New York: Rowan and Littlefield. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring, New York: State University of New York Press.
68
Gao, H., Baylor, A. L., & Shen, E. (2005). Designer Support for Online Collaboration and Knowledge Construction. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 69-79.
Designer Support for Online Collaboration and Knowledge Construction

Hong Gao
Instructional Systems Program Department of Educational Psychology & Learning Systems Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA Tel: +1 850-644-8004 Fax: +1 850-644-5803 hhg2629@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
Amy L. Baylor
Director, Center for Research of Innovative Technologies for Learning (RITL) Instructional Systems Program Department of Educational Psychology & Learning Systems Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA Tel: +1 850-644-5203 Fax: +1 850-644-8776 baylor@coe.fsu.edu
E Shen
Instructional Systems Program Department of Educational Psychology & Learning Systems Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA Tel: +1 850-644-0149 Fax: +1 850-644-4952 ess0086@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
Abstract
Designer support is critical for facilitating collaboration and knowledge construction in an online learning environment. Designer support in this paper refers to the mechanisms that a designer builds in a technology-mediated environment to facilitate online learning. This paper focuses on two aspects of designer support: 1) creating a shared context, and 2) facilitating online communication and knowledge construction. Examples of these two aspects of support are presented along a continuum ranging from technology that simply allows collaboration to collaborative technology that makes collaboration more accessible to users. Examples of strategies for creating a shared context include the use of metaphorical designs to graphically represent the virtual environment for intuitive navigation and role transplantation, the use of informational support for decision-making, and the use of multiple information channels and tools to support coordinated collaboration in task-based projects. In order to facilitate online communication and knowledge construction, on the other hand, designers can employ communication scaffolds to structure online communication and artifacts as shared representations that provide contexts for online discussions. Finally, the potential application of similar mechanisms to online course management systems is discussed.
Keywords
Designer support, Online collaboration and knowledge construction, Facilitation of online communication
Introduction
With the development of computer and network technology, computer-mediated learning has become a common practice. The effectiveness of such learning environments relies to a large extent on how computers are used. Research scientists proposed the idea that computers function as cognitive tools (Jonassen & Carr, 2000; Jonassen & Yueh, 1998; Lajoie, Lavigne, Guerrera, & Munsie, 2001; Teasley & Roschelle, 1993) that extend students capacity to learn and create knowledge. However, the functions of computers in online learning environments created by currently adopted course management systems in most schools and universities (e.g., Blackboard, WebCT) are far from what is desirable. The manner in which technology is used is partly determined by the design of the learning environment as it embodies the designers ideas and impacts humanmachine and human-human interaction. Designer support, thus, is critical for facilitating collaboration and knowledge construction in an online learning environment.
69
This paper focuses on two sources of designer support in online learning environments: one is support from designers to create a shared social context and the other is support that facilitates online communication. Support in creating a shared social context is associated with the problem of making transparent the social structure that is tacit in real life. Facilitation of online communication, on the other hand, is related to the mechanisms that can be built into the learning environment to ensure the quality of online interaction, given the research finding that the quality of learning and knowledge construction is closely related to the types of communication that occur between learners (King, 1999). Apart from the different areas that designer support addresses, it should also be noted that such support exists in a continuum ranging from features or systems such as instant messaging systems that simply allow collaboration to those that support collaboration. This is a distinction that was made in a recent paper by Dimitracopoulou & Petrou (2003) to differentiate technology supported systems based on the extent of support. They consider those systems that allow collaboration to be collaborative use of technology where users of the system have to make efforts for collaboration to occur, while the systems that support collaboration are classified as collaborative technology where designers create opportunities for collaboration and/or make online collaboration more accessible to users. In the following discussions, examples from existing design practices will be used to illustrate what mechanisms have been used to address the social structure issues and facilitate online communication and knowledge construction in online environments. In addition, the examples will be presented along the continuum of designer support, ranging from features that allow collaboration to those that support collaboration.
Creating a Shared Social Context

A shared social context is important for online learners to socialize, learn, and create knowledge, particularly when learners are strangers with little or no previous collaboration experience. Shared context can be established with various amount of support in design features ranging from having virtual environment representations to foster social relationships, to providing informational support for decision-making, and to having multiple information channels and tools to support coordinated collaboration in task-oriented projects.
Metaphorical Design: Graphical Representations of the Virtual Environment

When no social contact is made prior to collaboration, it is essential that a shared context be created to foster the establishment of social relationships. To that end, the socialization structures that have been so integrated into the traditional learning process have to be made explicit in some fashion (Dirckinck-Holmfeld & Sorensen, 1999). An example would be using a metaphorical design to graphically represent the virtual environment to create a sense of time and space. Where elements and the spatial layout of the virtual environment bear resemblance with the physical world that learners encounter in their daily practices, designers make it intuitive for learners to navigate and transplant the roles to which they are accustomed to the new environment. It is worth noting that research has indicated that the design of the virtual environment has to have the impact of being real and concrete. Barab and his colleagues (Barab, MaKinster, & Scheckler, 2004) discussed their change of metaphors for the Inquiry Learning Forum from floating doors that create a pseudo-physical feel to a more virtual school appearance (p. 79) that gives users a sense of a concrete place. In doing so, the more realistic look and feel would produce a feeling of place, resulting in users of the system being more likely to relate to it and have sustained involvement in the online activities.
Informational support for decision-making

Designers can also build mechanisms that provide information support to assist with decision-making. It is usually difficult for persons who are new to an online environment to decide what features are of interest to them and they will need support systems that contain information critical to make their decisions. For instance, designers of MathForum (www.mathforum.com) provide an i at the end of each discussion group so that participants can easily access information when they make decisions on which groups they wish to join.
70
Figure 1. List of Mathforum discussion groups (From http://www.mathforum.com/discussions/)
With a click on the button, participations can obtain information on the purpose of the discussion group, how it can be accessed, whether it is moderated, as well as where to obtain detailed information on the discussion group, as indicated in Figure 2. Such assistance that designers provide to support legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 29) affects how well the user gets acquainted with the virtual environment and in turn his or her ensuing involvement.
Figure 2. Information on the discussion group of k12.ed.math (From http://www.mathforum.com/discussions/about/k12.ed.math.html)
Metaphorical design and embedded informational support are useful to get users/learners oriented with the virtual environment, but such support only sets the stage for collaboration. This kind of support does not actively mediate the actual collaboration process and is not adequate when learners are engaged in task-oriented projects. To achieve coordinated collaboration, more informational support is needed to support workspace awareness, as elaborated below.
Multiple Tools to Support Coordinated Collaboration

In task-oriented projects, learners should not only have knowledge of the environment, but more importantly, they must be aware of what is going on with the project and then act appropriately. At least three kinds of awareness are of concern: social awareness, action awareness, and activity awareness, each of which requires different types of information, as indicated in the following table (Table 1). Systems can usually provide some support for social awareness and action awareness. One simple example is the chat room in the Blackboard course management system that provides instant information regarding who enters the discussion and who departs at what time. Such information appears in the middle of a conversation and the participants in the online conversation are informed instantly and can act accordingly. Similarly, in some online communities, the following information is provided to support social and action awareness: who logged on,
71
where he or she is in the virtual environment, whether he or she is active, how long he or she has been idling, and in what activity he or she is engaged. Table 1. Three awareness concerns and information that might address them (Carroll, Neale, Isenhour, Rosson, & McCrickard, 2003) (p. 611) Awareness concern Information needed to address this awareness concern Social: Who is Presence of collaborators; features of an online collaborator that convey motivational around? state or attitude; timing, frequency, or intensity of individual or group activity or communication Action: What is Timing, type, or frequency of collaborators interactions with a shared resource; happening? location and focus of collaborators current activity Activity: How are Creation or changes to shared plans, evaluations, or rationale; assignment or things going? modifications of project roles; task dependencies based on roles, timing, resources, etc.; exception handling
However, the support for activity awareness that is necessary for the successful implementation of complex and long-term tasks is rare in online learning environments. Activity awareness involves distributed goals, plans, and resources, participants understanding of others actions, as well as assessment of the current situation. To successfully complete task-oriented projects online, a joint workspace with multiple tools that support the above types of awareness should be enacted. The following example is part of the notification system in the Learning in Networked Communities (LiNC) project for middle and high school students who collaborated in science classrooms. Various mechanisms were built in to provide informational support for social awareness, action awareness, and activity awareness.
Figure 3. Collaboration and awareness tools in the Virtual School (Carroll et al., 2003)
The central tool that is displayed in the middle of the screenshot (Figure 3) is the collaborative editor, science notebook, a metaphorical design used to create a shared social context. Learners are notified via auditory cues when their peers join or leave the session. Further, the session manager window on the left of the screenshot has three components: 1) the roster pane that provides information on members of the group, group affiliations, and current presence, location, and activity in the system; 2) the notebooks section that notifies the user the notebook in use; and 3) the notice board that documents significant actions to the notebooks and lists the last time when shared notebooks were edited. Moreover, the Gantt chart views in the planning pages in the notebook can be
72
triggered to obtain information on project state, task descriptions, deadlines, and completed tasks. A shared whiteboard can also be activated for annotation of graphics, and those annotations can be used to inform collaborators of a certain aspect of the project. Different colors were used to indicate what pages are currently under a users editing control or are being edited by a collaborator. As illustrated in the screenshot, a lock in green is used to indicate the notebook page currently under review by the user is the robot picture. The textual information at the bottom of the window notifies the user that the page has been locked and is unavailable for others editing. Similarly, earlier learning environments for collaboration in science projects have also had a wide range of tools to support online collaboration. For instance, CoVis (learning through collaborative visualization) provided collaborators with desktop video teleconferencing; visualization software; shared software environments for remote, real-time collaboration; a special multimedia scientists notebook; and access to the resources on the Internet (Pea, Edeelson, & Gomez, 1994). What is evident in the above examples is that to support collaboration in task-based projects, designers may need to have multiple tools to support different types of awareness, particularly activity awareness, and help learners effectively organize and share their experiments or projects to achieve coordinated collaboration. However, when the goal is for users to get acquainted with the online environment, support for activity awareness may not be essential. Thus, obtaining information on the types of activities in which learners will be engaged will give the designer some indication of what kinds of support are indispensable.
Facilitation of Communication and Knowledge Construction

The establishment of a shared context and awareness support provides the potential for sustained conversation and knowledge construction. However, the quality of online learning is, to a large extent, determined by and reflected in the types of interactions that occur while the learners are engaged in the activities. As mentioned before, some technological tools for online communication allow collaboration rather than support collaboration. Emails, discussion boards, and instant messaging systems are not designed to support collaboration. Rather, users of such systems have to make efforts to collaborate with each other in that there are no structures or other forms of representations available that would support their communication. On the other hand, studies on knowledge construction in collaborative learning have revealed that despite the efforts made in various learning environments (Ge & Land, 2002; McLean, 1999), the students ability to conduct effective interactions with others was limited. For instance, Bianchini (1997) found discussions of scientific concepts, applications, and connections appear to be rare, (p. 1053) and the students mainly focused on observational or procedural matters in their activities. In addition, Kittleson & Southerland (2004) observed that there were few instances of knowledge construction where each member of the team contributed and the consensus on a possible solution to the problem was reached. The above research findings point to the need for direct intervention on the part of system designers and online facilitators to support online communication and facilitate knowledge construction. In the following sections, two examples in which designers provide support for communication are discussed: one uses communication scaffolds and the other uses artifacts as shared representations to provide a context for online discussions.
Communication Scaffolds
Many methods have been proposed to structure and facilitate online communication (Fischer, Bruhn, Grasel, & Mandl, 2002) and one of the strategies is the use of communication scaffolds. This strategy has been successfully implemented with young learners at KnowledgeForumTM (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994) by having students select message descriptions (e.g., my theory, I need to understand, new information) for preparation of their messages. These descriptions serve as metacognitive tools for learners to reflect upon their thinking process as well as to communicate their thinking to each other (McLean, 1999). For instance, the idea has been implemented in creating a case-based database for teachers professional development (Jonassen, 1999). Scaffolds that center on certain aspects of interest are presented to elicit relevant information from teachers including the type of conference, classroom placement, reason for the conference, goal of the conference, plan, results of the conference, reflection by the teacher, alternative teacher action, and the story (Figure 4).
73
Figure 4. Database of teacher stories, from Jonassen & colleagues (1999, p. 161)
The scaffolds in this case serve several functions. On one hand, it fosters reflection on the part of the teacher who actually had the experience (Lin, 2001). More importantly, the communication scaffolds structured the discussions and enabled learners to find different perspectives on similar cases. The differences in perspectives enhance the likelihood that teachers will engage in more reflections and discussions of their practices. Similar strategies have been proposed, researched, and extended to other online activities. Such strategies include the use of sentence openers in many learning environments including DIALAB (Moore, 1993) and BetterBlether (Robertson, Good, & Pain, 1998), the use of constraint-based argumentation scaffolds to assist learners in problem-solving (Cho & Jonassen, 2001), and the use of argumentation scaffolds and message labels in online debates (Jeong & Joung, 2003). The communication scaffolds not only assist the learners in enhancing the quality of online interaction, but more importantly, they provide online facilitators/instructors an effective means to monitor online interaction, and furthermore, the archived conversations help instructors identify what skills they need to focus on in class. Caution should be taken when using communication scaffolds. One consideration is for the amount of structure imposed on students. Some systems not only confine the communication moves within the selection of scaffolds but also have the students use the scaffolds in the pre-determined sequence to promote the quality of interaction. Although the sequences of the conversational acts may be significant, scripting the learners conversations may not be necessary when effective group strategies are used. Studies have also found the potential risk that students may change their intended meaning to fit the given sentence openers and thereby change of the nature of the interaction (Soller, 1999). One possible solution is for designers to provide templates so that instructors can adapt the scaffold to suit the needs of specific tasks. Another concern researchers pointed out was that the communicational scaffolds may not be used by the learners as intended, and thus, the thinking and conversational skills represented in the sentence openers may not be not practiced (Dillenbourg, 2002). Clarifications, training, and practice prior to the use of the communicational scaffolds may help alleviate the problem of improper uses.
Artifacts as shared representations to provide contexts for online discussions

Artifacts as shared representations can be another method to facilitate collaboration and knowledge construction. Graphical representations have been found to be better than texts in assisting communication, (Patterson, Dansereau, & Newbern, 1992) and they are used to guide interaction in collaborative activities (Suthers & Hundhausen, 2001). In addition, shared representations can also be used to facilitate the building of common ground, which is a critical process of knowledge construction (Ostwald, 1996). In the communication process,
74
there will be breakdowns resulting from the limited shared contexts of participants with different cultures, personal experiences, or professional engagements. With the presence of the shared representations, participants can draw the attention of others to an object by pointing to it or naming it to ensure all are referring to the same thing, and in some cases, the explicit representations themselves become the medium of communication (Suthers, Girardeau, & Hundhausen, 2002). As the shared context between participants increases, their interpretations of the shared representation become similar to one anothers, as illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Explicit representation assists in creating a shared context (Ostwald, 1996, p.59)
Findings from empirical studies also support the use of collaboratively constructed artifacts. A series of studies by Roth & Roychoudhury (1992; 1993; 1994) found that the students talked science in creating the concept maps and engaged in processes similar to those in the science community: collaborative construction of concepts, the use of adversarial exchanges, and the formation of temporary alliances. Likewise, it was found (Fischer et al., 2002) that when the learners are provided with tools to construct content-specific visualization, the process and outcomes of collaborative learning improved. However, most online environments contain parallel communication tools (Suthers, 1999). That is, the artifacts and the associated discussions in such systems appear in separate windows, and the systems do not assure the coordination between the discussions and the related artifacts. For instance, in the Blackboard system, although graphical representations can be collectively or individually created in the whiteboard, the discussions on the associated graphical representations can only be accessed from the group discussion page. Without readily accessible representations, discussions and interpretations may lack a context, which will negatively influence the sustainability of online interaction. Efforts have been made to improve the situation, and systems that contain embedded communication tools have been proposed and created. In such systems, embedded communication tools enable users to conduct discussions in the context of the artifact, and users can capitalize on the advantage by referring to part of the artifact or recovering discussions on certain parts of the artifact. Guzdail & Turns (2000) used documents as anchors to motivate students and stimulate sustained on-topic discussions. Similarly, Suthers and his colleagues have created different tools to facilitate communication. Kukakuka (Suthers & Xu, 2002), which will be discussed below, is one of the systems that use artifacts (web pages) to support online discussions. Figure 6 displays a web page of a group discussion. One thing in particular about the discussion is that each message is centered on an artifact. Kukakuka, the learning environment, has the capacity to simultaneously display the artifact associated with the message on display, the subject lines of the group messages, and the selected message. In the above web page, the artifact associated with the message storyboard appears on the left frame of the screen, while the subject lines of the group messages appear on the upper right frame, and the selected message is shown on the bottom right frame. The display of the associated artifact provides a context for
75
the reader of the message to comprehend the textual information. In addition, since the artifact maintains its presence in both the replies to the selected message and other messages along the same line, it is less likely that readers will misinterpret the suggested revisions in previous messages, and thus, the artifact facilitates the building of common ground and knowledge construction.
Figure 6. Kukakuka: an online environment for artifact-centered discourse (Suthers & Xu, 2002)
This system is undergoing revisions based on users feedback. Problems are being addressed such as the systems lack of ability to differentiate between previously read and newly displayed messages and the absence of a notification system that would periodically inform users of newly posted messages (Suthers & Xu, 2002). A problem with the systems that contain embedded communication tools is that discussions are usually fragmented by artifacts, which causes learners to lose a holistic view of the discussion and the relationships between different aspects of the artifact (Dimitracopoulou & Petrou, 2003). These are the concerns that have to be addressed if embedded communication tools are to be useful in supporting online communication and knowledge construction.
Conclusion
Although most of the above support is not available at present in the online learning environments of the course management systems widely in use, they are potentially useful. For instance, metaphorical designs like the following could be used to guide learners in the virtual space: a student lounge for social activities, postings of social events, or personal information students would like to share with the class; a virtual office where students can have meetings with instructors; a lecture hall where students can listen and/or view content related information; and a discussion forum where students can annotate each others work and conduct intensive discussions on course contents. Such design efforts would make the navigation intuitive and transplantation of roles easy in the virtual environment. Also mechanisms that support coordinated collaboration should be made available for complex projects, such as Gantt charts for students to plan their projects and keep track of actual implementations, notice board to notify students of important actions on documents, as well as instant identification of the presence of collaborators. All of these notification systems would enable students to coordinate their efforts in completing large projects. To facilitate communication and knowledge construction, designers could build scaffold templates which instructors could later adopt to suit their needs in specific courses. Additionally, the capability of the system to simultaneously display artifacts and discussions would be beneficial to learners when the discussions are context-dependent. For instance, in the planning phase of a project, the display of the Gantt charts along with
76
discussion threads would give a holistic view, inform participants of the current status of the project, and clarify the division of labor while, at the same time, reducing the likelihood of miscommunication. With improved designer support, more tools that address different aspects of online learning could be made available for instructors and learners to use in ways desirable for online collaboration and knowledge construction. Concerted efforts from designers, instructors, and learners could make computers function as cognitive tools in online learning environments.
References
Barab, S., MaKinster, J., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Designing system dualities: building online community. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34 (10), 1039-1065. Carroll, J. M., Neale, D. C., Isenhour, P. L., Rosson, M. B., & McCrickard, D. S. (2003). Notification and awareness: synchronizing task-oriented collaborative activity. International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 58, 605-632. Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2001). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology: Research & Development, 50 (3), 5-22. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three words of CSCL: can we support CSCL? , Heerlen: Open Universiteit Netherland, 61-91. Dimitracopoulou, A., & Petrou, A. (2003). Advanced collaborative distance learning systems for young students: design issues and current trends on new cognitive and meta-cognitive tools, Retrieved December 10, 2004, from http://www.modellingspace.net/Documents/Collaborative%20Review%20adimitr%20petrou%20special%20issu e%20Themes.pdf. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Sorensen, E. K. (1999). Distributed computer supported collaborative learning through shared practice and social participation. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL), December 12-15, 1999, Palo Alto, California, USA, retrieved December 10, 2004 from http://sll.stanford.edu/projects/CSCL99/papers/wednesday/Lone_Dirckinck_136.pdf. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Grasel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213-232. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2002). The effects of question prompts and peer interactions in scaffolding students' problem-solving process on an ill-structured task. Paper presented at the AERA conference, April 1-5, 2002, New Orleans, LA, USA, retrieved December 10, 2004 from http://edtech.connect.msu.edu/Searchaera2002/viewproposaltext.asp?propID=2215. Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9 (4), 437-469. Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2003). The effects of response constraints and message labels on interaction patterns and argumentation in online discussions. Retrieved December 1, 2004, from http://dev22448-01.sp01.fsu.edu/Research/Labeling/Fall2002/AERAProposalScaffolding.pdf. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Creating Technology-supported learning communities. In D. H. Jonassen, K. L. Peck & B. G. Wilson (Eds.), Learning with technology: a constructivist perspective, Merrill: Prentice Hall, 115-150. Jonassen, D. H., & Carr, C. S. (2000). Mindtools: Affording Multiple Knowledge Representations for Learning. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools, volume two: no more walls: theory change, paradigm shifts,
77
and their influence on the use of computers for instructional purposes, II, Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 165-196. Jonassen, D. H., & Yueh, H.-P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43 (2), 24-32. King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 87-115. Kittleson, J. M., & Southerland, S. A. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: a case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (3), 267-293. Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29 (2), 155-186. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, New York: Cambridge University Press. Lin, X. (2001). Design metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49 (2), 2320. McLean, R. S. (1999). Meta-Communication widgets for knowledge building in distance education. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL), December 12-15, 1999, Palo Alto, California, USA. Moore, M. G. (1993). Transactional distance theory. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education, London: Routledge, 22-38. Ostwald, J. (1996). Knowledge construction in software development: the evolving artifact approach. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Boulder, CO, USA: University of Colorado. Patterson, M. E., Dansereau, D. F., & Newbern, D. (1992). Effects of communication aids and strategies on cooperative teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (4), 453-461. Pea, R. D., Edeelson, D., & Gomez, L. (1994). The CoVis collaboratory: high school science learning supported by a broadband educational network with scientific visualization, videoconferencing, and collaborative computing. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, USA, retrieved December 10, 2004 from http://www2.covis.nwu.edu/papers/CoVis_PDF/PeaAERA94.pdf. Robertson, J., Good, J., & Pain, H. (1998). BetterBlether: the design and evaluation of a discussion tool for education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 219-236. Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1992). The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76 (5), 531-557. Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: a microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (5), 503-534. Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Science discourse through collaborative concept mapping: new perspectives for the teacher. International Journal of Science Education, 16 (4), 437-455. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3 (3), 265-283. Soller, A. L. (1999). Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system, retrieved December 27, 2004, from http://sra.itc.it/people/soller/documents/ijaied/2001/Soller-IJAIED.html.
78
Suthers, D. (1999). Representational support for collaborative inquiry. Paper presented at the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-32), January 5-8, 1999, Maui, Hawaii, USA. Suthers, D., Girardeau, L. E., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2002). The roles of representations in online collaborations. Paper presented at the AERA conference, April 1-5, 2002, New Orleans, LA, USA. Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2001). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: an empirical comparison of three alternatives. Paper presented at the Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, March 22-24, 2001, Maastrict, the Netherlands. Suthers, D., & Xu, J. (2002). Kukakuka: an online environment for artifact-centered discourse, retrieved December 25, 2004, from http://www2002.org/CDROM/alternate/252/. Teasley, S. D., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Construction a joint problem space: the computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 229-258.
79
Guzzi, R., Scarpanti, S., Ballista, G., & Di Nicolantonio, W. (2005). An Educational Development Tool Based on Principles of Formal Ontology. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 80-89.
An Educational Development Tool Based on Principles of Formal Ontology

Rodolfo Guzzi
ISAC CNR Via Gobetti 101 Bologna, Italy r.guzzi@isac.cnr.it
Stefano Scarpanti, Giovanni Ballista, Walter Di Nicolantonio

Carlo Gavazzi Space at ISAC,CNR Bologna, Italy s.scarpanti@isac.cnr.it g.ballista@isac.cnr.it w.dinicolantonio@isac.cnr.it
Abstract
Computer science provides with virtual laboratories, places where one can merge real experiments with the formalism of algorithms and mathematics and where, with the advent of multimedia, sounds and movies can also be added. In this paper we present a method, based on principles of formal ontology, allowing one to develop interactive educational tools. The structure of our system starts from general considerations on knowledge itself moving on to formal ontological principles in order to obtain a robust knowledge frame and good awareness of knowledge levels involved during the teaching process. Our system is split into object-knowledge - the knowledge of the phenomenon to be taught - and meta-knowledge - i.e., how to teach it. Using a trip (journey) metaphor, together with the flexibility of semantic graph representations, we define the reference frame and we apply it to a case study related to the Planetary Missions, the subject of our research. This tool is provided with a multimedia interface to show the results of several current missions , but may be implemented with new missions.
Keywords
Formal ontology principles, Edutainment, Knowledge graph, Knowledge representation.
Introduction
With the advent of multimedia technology in computer science, the word edutainment (a combination of the words education and entertainment) has become broader in scope. In multimedia computers, the virtual laboratory, a room where experiments can be carried out, merges real experiments with the formalism of algorithms and mathematics, by means of sounds and movies. Even though at a first glance several words are not needed to justify the use of multimedia support to have entertainment in education, given its strong appeal to users, it is necessary to be aware of the importance of the use of entertainment within the framework of the dynamics of teaching. Several web sites in which edutainment is used, are poor and not really effective: the use of movies or images is marginal and ornamental. There is no real interactivity and the content is worse than a poorly written book, so that the level of teaching is not sufficient for learning. To better analyze the dynamics of teaching, especially in the web case, it is suitable to take advantage of the concept of control in teaching and its transfer from the teacher to the learner, a sharp way of analysis born in the 90s, even before the web widespread diffusion. Educational web sites can be analized by point of view of transfer of control. Our analysis may start from the following two cases as illustrative of several other cases. Without any intent of criticism we refer about two different approaches selected as representative of the matter under discussion. In NOAA education resources site (www.education.noaa.gov) the relation between users and the computer environment, the transfer of control is parcellized in different parts: those primarely dedicated to teachers, those dedicated to students and the cool sites for everyone. In such approach the web acts as a remote book with beatiful pictures with some quick and brief movie but not with a true interactivity. In a second case the NASA site (quest.arc.nasa.gov) the transfer of control is supported by a minimal interactivity mode with related articles and guides on space exploration. In both cases two actors are identified by the transfer of control: the person learning (that is supposed to learn) and the teaching environment (or better the environment in which teaching should be carried out). Then when a teacher is not physically present it is evident that the best way to learn is by a certain degree of computer interactivity. Initially, the learner is passive because she/he does not have control of the environment. The
80
simplest way is to make a tour of the environment giving one an idea of what and how it is. Afterwards, the user becomes more active and interacts with the system. This stage is not necessarily the stage of understanding, but it will be the stage of pre-comprehension, which varies from person to person. Only when there is complete control of the interactivity can the users enter into the environment of the teaching system and become protagonists of their own learning within, of course, the limits of the information content of the system itself. Since learning strongly depends on personal attitudes, it is difficult to define, a-priori, which is the best approach: deduction or induction, or both. Probably the deductive approach is more natural for software tools, in which rules are defined a-priori. The aim of this paper is to present a method allowing the development of an educational tool. This method has been implemented in our multimedia laboratory and has been applied to space missions, which is the subject of our research. It may also be used for other subjects. Our approach is based on formal ontological principles, which are summarized in the following sections. Then we present the structure of our system and its semantics and, finally, the applications we have developed.
Ontology & Formal Ontology

Recently, computer science and, in particular, artificial intelligence have developed a new discipline called formal ontology. Formal ontology is an extension of the more traditional knowledge representation field because generic knowledge representation strategies are not sufficient to achieve the goal of engineering a piece of knowledge into a software system. This means that new tools or strategies are needed to find the best structure of knowledge, its disaggregation, relations between its atoms, and the hierarchy of its parts. Since it is currently considered worth thinking of knowledge as an entity by itself, before planning its engineering, it is important to outline which parts of it are devoted to specific domains and which are more general. This is why it is necessary to switch from knowledge considerations to ontological considerations. Briefly, formal ontology has been defined, (Cocchiarella, 1991), as: the systematic, formal, axiomatic development of the logic of all forms and modes of being . Even though the genuine interpretation of the term "formal ontology" is still a matter of debate, it takes into account both the meanings of the adjective "formal": that is synonymous of "rigorous", while ontology means "related to the forms of being". Therefore, what formal ontology is concerned with is not so much the bare existence of certain individuals, but rather the rigorous description of their forms." (Guarino, 1995). Formal ontology provides several hints about knowledge treatment in a system but here we are only considering those related to the knowledge structure. Thus, our approach is based on: an analysis of what is known about a certain argument, its subdivision into different homogeneous pieces, let us say atoms, the understanding of what relations there are among them, and the selection of some of these parts, that are explicitly devoted to the software system for handling the knowledge and above all for handling its ontological part. This involves the sharing between the static knowledge engineered into the system (that is the unalterable part, the part constituting the system) from knowledge that is alterable and may be modified by the user (in our approach the teacher). Although we will not go here deeper into the technical aspects concerning formal ontology, we describe how we have used formal ontological principles. From our point of view, an ontologically correct educational software system needs a proper knowledge representation, which will be presented in the next section, in which some of its components are devoted to handling explicitly ontological problems and then to carry out the computation of the knowledge transfer. From several points of view it is crucial to have some components devoted to knowledge processing: first because it increases the transparency of the system, and also because it allows an easy identification of those parts to be considered and modified for knowledge upgrades or changes.
Knowledge representation
As mentioned above, knowledge is represented by its own domain and its transfer educational structure. The former is the object of the system, that is to say the domain of the teachers knowledge which one handles
81
explicitly and thus can be changed. The second is the system, i.e. the way by which the knowledge is transferred and engineered into the system and which cannot be altered by the user. In our approach, the transfer of the domain knowledge is based on the assumption that any teaching process may be represented as though it were a description of a trip. So our system is based on the trip cycle, as shown in figure 1. This approach contains the essence of teaching. In fact the teacher, introducing and explaining an argument, starts from certain assumptions, considered the initial set up, develops them by intermediate states, by concepts, and reaches the final destination which is the conclusion of his reasoning. Since our system is also dedicated to the user, we have also introduced the concept of error, as though it were another path, different from the correct path, which produces a warning and induces another trial.
Figure 1. State diagram: the trip cycle with bonus or warnings
This linear, mono-dimensional, structure can be applied to describe the phenomena which are the subject of the knowledge, in a very natural way. So, regardless of the complexity of the phenomena to be treated, we can always describe them by a linear procedure. It is worthwhile pointing out that we are not building a model of something, but only a description of it, so we do not use the approach of many modeling systems, in which there are feedback loops to represent dynamic systems, and the evolution of their quantities. We are simply describing a process choosing a starting point and a final destination, with several intermediate steps, according to the level of detail of the description chosen. Since in the description of phenomena or events we may have many starting points and many destinations, many paths linking them together, and paths passing through inner steps, our system is also able to represent all those figures.
Semantics
Let us now show the semantics we use to describe the process in our domain knowledge. The semantics of our language is defined by categories, classes and descriptors. Categories are sets of classes representing the same status or event. Categories are only conceptuals and do not enter into the software development. They are used to describe the potential links between sets of classes. For these reasons we do not describe their use although they are included in our Planetary Mission project, to render clearer the structure of our semantics. Classes are the elements in which the narration has been segmented. They represent the minimal self-consistent information in which the subject of knowledge has been divided. They contain a certain number of descriptors and are the main elements of our semantics.
82
Descriptors are primitive elements which define the subject of the knowledge and allow the input of its relation to classes. Each descriptor is associated with a node, which can be considered the physical element which links one descriptor to another by arrows. The strict relationship between each node and its descriptor and the connection between one descriptor and another defines a graph.
Figure 2. Elements of ontology. Descriptors inside classes shown
The domain knowledge is segmented into self-consistent pieces, so the whole domain knowledge is fragmented but complete. In figure 2 ontology elements and its semantics are shown. Each class may contain several descriptors, since there are different choices or potential paths that can be used during the narration. Each class, being a step of the narration, contains different descriptors to follow different paths of the narration but equivalent from the point of view of semantics. Descriptors and nodes are connected together to form a graph that is the plotted structure. Nodes contain the constraints of the narration. The graph formed by classes and nodes summarizes the plot of the knowledge and represents the logic links. All possible events occurring in the plot are shown by graphs.
Figure 3. Frame of knowledge segmented into classes
83
We might consider classes and descriptors as semantic structures, while the nodes, with which they are associated, are their syntactic counterparts (see figure 3). In order to make a distinction between two or more descriptors in the same class, some constraints are to be added to descriptors by the constraint buttons as shown in figure 4. An example of how some constraints, between different classes, are to be inserted is shown in figure 5.
Figure 4. Example of constraint buttons for local paths inside the class
Since, as mentioned above, the system is based on different paths related to the subject of the knowledge domain, during each run of the system only one path will be taken, and many runs will be typically needed by the user to understand the subject being learned. Then the whole domain knowledge will be built as a net, in which each knowledge atom will be linked to others to form the whole net information necessary.
Figure 5. Graph between classes and constraint buttons applied to nodes
Knowledge graph
Since the graph is a very common data structure to represent conceptual knowledge (Luger et Stubblefield, 1998) or semantic networks ( Nilsson, 1998), as shown in Figures 5, our graph is the set of nodes and arrows connecting them (Luger et Stubblefield, 1998). Each node has a label to distinguish its descriptors. Drawing arrows between nodes means mapping out possible paths in the narration; we do not deal with graphs in which
84
there are possible loops, because our semantic structure does not allow such structure in paths. Vice versa our semantics may manage forks from each node because we may deal with graphs and not simply with trees which are simpler graphs. The use of graphs instead of trees gives more flexibility to the plotted description because we may have multiple paths leading to the same result. Each run of the system takes a path of the narration and this path is a level of knowledge acquired by the learner. The whole domain is only completely described by all paths, so a good learning system implies several trials, that is to say several runs. Then the entire knowledge can be taught as compounded by the descriptors graph (path graph) plus the conditions for proceeding. The minimum necessary conditions for paths among classes are: not cyclic and at least one complete path. Without at least one complete path, the classes graph is nonsense, because one misses some links and has no complete information needed to run the system.
Class graph & conditions

Once we have built up a graph node, we also obtain a class graph. Building relations between nodes also means also building relations between the descriptors contained in each class. The system uses link nodes to infer link classes. Link classes can be labelled, it is possible to put a label, that is to say a condition for proceeding, controlling the direction of the whole narration along that path. These conditions can break the narration if false and trigger a warning to the user. Vice versa, the narration proceeds to the next class. Each class may reach the next only if conditions defined in arrows linking classes are satisfied. Null conditions are considered true. A typical sequence of classes, linked one by one as in a list, is shown in figure 5. In addition to this simple structure, branches may also be parallel, that is to say one may have forks from some classes. Conditions between classes are based on Boolean logic, with AND and OR operators. Each OR-branch is labeled by a selected destination or by ALL destinations. This allows a partial conditioning, i.e., to condition only a path leading to a specific destination, in order to be able to distinguish some paths from others according to the final destination. This is why we may consider OR-branches as case-branches. AND-branches are nested into ORbranches. The logical sentence we adopt is the disjunctive normal form (DNF as defined in Barwise et Etchemendy, 1993). At the bottom we have conjunctions, AND-relations between atomic conditions, and above disjunctions, OR-relations, which is a standard way to represent every complex logical proposition.
Operation on the system

The operations to be carried out on the system are defined by teacher and user modes. Teacher mode. In this mode one defines all possible steps and paths and all possible statements (and their features and constraints) to begin and carry out the trip. The teacher mode acts on classes and descriptors of the system producing directories containing images, data, movies and sound files related to the topics of the domain knowledge selected. In teacher mode it is also possible to define the conditions to proceed through the steps. User mode (or learner mode). In this mode, the user can make choices to define the main parameters of the trip, or to find the atoms of knowledge, which are defined as paths among all those possible. The user collects all the items necessary to define and complete the trip. During this phase, the learner acts as though he were teaching himself, selecting the best items or statements describing the domain knowledge . Every time the step forward is subject to an error, the cognitive feedback system gives a warning to correct the procedure the user has set. Between the teacher mode and user mode there is a unit, named Comparator, in which the domain knowledge is explicitly transferred by means of simple rules defined in teacher mode. This unit maintains and uses the transfer educational structure which is statically engineered and which cannot be altered by any users, neither teacher nor learner. The teacher mode acts to modify or implement the knowledge but not the structure of the comparator. It uses the domain knowledge, properly prepared in teacher mode, comparing the choices made by the teacher with those made by the users (learners), carrying out the task of interactively teaching through warnings and suggestions when learners make errors. In figure 6 we can see the two interfaces linked to the system kernel. One is used to set up the knowledge (teacher mode), the other is used to learn (user mode).
85
Figure 6. The comparator between the teacher and the learner mode
Graphics interfaces Let us now show how a graph is built and its graphics interface designed from scratch on the basis of our semantics. We may start by activating the teacher mode. If the computer window is blank, we need to create classes and related descriptors by simply clicking on the classes and embedded descriptors using the relative buttons (see figure 7). They produce the corresponding icons in the computer window and directories on the computer hard-disk.
Figure 7. Main button field
Operations are defined in teacher mode as relationships among all the ontological parts. They are: possible transition between areas, condition of item transferring, variables monitoring the system (linked to items and areas properties displayed), conditions for proceeding between classes (linked to lists of items in areas) and special conditions (global conditions on system variables). When all the constraints and connections have been defined the system is saved and only the teacher can modify it. The graphics user interface is, on the other hand, what the user deals with in user or learning mode. The user will find all the items describing the knowledge domain. The interface contains: storage areas, empty, storage areas with icons, decision selectors to carry out the trial/path in domain knowledge, and some monitors showing system variables. Thus the user, simply, drags and drops inside a proper iconized area descriptors in order to define the logical links between the steps of the narration. Only when the construction is well defined and correct will the system run otherwise it shows a warning with information on possible corrections.
Application: a case study

Space Mission Games Using Formal Ontology as presented above, we have built up an educational tool about planetary missions. We referred to some detailed scientific documents on space mission design (Wertz et Larson,1999; Doody, 2001) to identify the main parameters considered as affecting a generic space mission. Several real planetary missions
86
documented by NASA (JPL-NASA at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/, NASA missions at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/, and NASA database at http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/) and ESA (ESA, 2004), have been considered to tune mission parameters and main items with real mission quantities. We have fragmented a hypothetical mission into several pieces, mission classes, and within these we have identified several possible different cases. These cases, descriptors, are the nodes of our graph by which we outline all the different ways to carry out a planetary mission. Each node descriptor, in our case defined by the components of the mission, rocket, probe, target planets and related to the instrumentation allowing the fulfillment of the mission, are linked to movie fragments which are edited in a whole sequence when the mission is set up. A proper interface to QuickTime has been built up for AVI and MPEG movies. The movie shows the mission as it proceeds and its results, following the graph path from the starting node (the launcher) to the final one (planet destination).
Classes & Descriptors In this Space Mission Game, we have three formal categories: launch, trip, exploration. They may be subdivided into the following classes (plot segments): platform, lift-off, flyby, planet target, arrival, probe, etc. The corresponding descriptors, contained in classes, are: types of launchers (static and/or dynamic state), different flight dynamics, different planets, different landing approaches, different probes, etc.
Connections: Links & Conditions Let us show, by examples (figure 8) how to set up teacher mode and how to plan to reach Mars. We may select Ariane as launcher (static mode). The first descriptor inside the Platform class is, in fact, Ariane. It is linked, by an arrow, to Ariane in Lift-off class (dynamics mode), and then to Mars, in planet target class and so on. Since the system accepts more links, we may add other pathways, for instance starting with the launcher Saturn or other launchers instead of Ariane, always leading to Mars. The link is simply obtained by dragging the arrow between the descriptors. Constraints are introduced by clicking on the arrows as shown in figures 4 and 5.
Figure 8. Example of configuring, by multiple arrows, the system in teacher mode
In user mode, see figure 9, users select the scientific mission (for instance to study the magnetic field, atmosphere, etc.) and the target planet (from Earth to Uranus). All the components are introduced inside the rocket silhouette by drag&drop operations, which are in the right part of the picture. In the upper left the chosen instrument for the scientific mission, in the middle the instruments to perform the space mission (from the navigation sensors to power, etc) and in the lower part the suitable amount of fuel. When the required conditions are defined the space probe is set up for its mission. The Launch Button allows the mission to run and to be visualized. Vice versa when a set up error occurs, a warning related to the mission failure (see figure 10) is shown. The warning also contains a link to the space mission manual where there is information allowing the user to understand his error and correct it.
87
Figure 9. Graphic user interface of Space Mission
Figure 10. Warning example
Conclusions
In this paper we have presented a method to develop an interactive educational tool able to describe a selfconsistent process of knowledge learning based on the description of a defined phenomenon. The structure of our system is based on formal ontological principles for a robust knowledge frame and good awareness of knowledge levels involved during the teaching process. The knowledge frame is expressed by categories (only formal), classes and descriptors . Using such items, semantic rules based on graphs, in conjunction with Boolean logic, have been developed. The system contains two main units: one used by the teacher (to set up the knowledge) and one used by the learner (to learn by trial and error).
88
In teacher mode the system is mainly based on two features: paths between classes and related constraints between classes. By these two approaches the learning system is conditioned. In user mode, on running the system, the user knows which events are encountered in each class, and from the conditions, the user knows whether he will be able to proceed or not from one class to another (of course along its path), discovering the information contained in the system. The user will have to choose or to set up elements and their related properties, which will be evaluated during the system run. In order to make the system attractive, a user friendly interface has also been created. The advantage of our approach is that it is based on a mono-dimensional linear procedure resembling the form of a narrative. This structure is easily transferable into a software tool which, by using the GUI tools, allows one to use the computer as though it were a piece of paper on which a pencil can draw a knowledge graph. The first release of an educational tool has been set up and called Space Mission and it is devoted to a planetary mission. It has been presented in several exhibitions to acquire feedback and in order to be closer to user requirements. The open structure of our educational tool allows it to be applied in other contexts. We intend to apply the current structure in other fields of application, including medicine, in order to evaluate its flexibility and its ontological robustness in depth. Space Mission can be downloaded from: http://yoda.bo.isac.cnr.it/SpaceMission/ It runs on Windows and MacOS X operating systems. A guide is also included.
References
Barwise, J., & Etchemendy, J. (1993). The Language of First Order Logic (3rd Ed.), Stanford, CA: CSLI Publication. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1991). Formal Ontology. In H. Burkhardt & B. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology, Munich: Philosophia Verlag, 640-647. Doody, D. (2001). Basics of Space Flight JPL D-20120, retrieved 9 December 2004 from http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/. ESA (2004). European Space Agency official site, retrieved 9 December 2004 from http://www.esa.int/. Guarino, N. (1995). Formal Ontology, Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation. International Journal of Human and Computer Studies, 43 (5/6), 625-640. Guarino, N. (1998). Formal Ontology and Information Systems. In N. Guarino (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems, Amsterdam: IOS Press, 3-15. Luger, G. F., & Stubblefield, W. A. (1998). Artificial Intelligence, Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (3rd Ed.), Italy, Milan: Addison Wesley Longman. Nilsson, N. J. (1998). Artificial Intelligence, A New Synthesis, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Wertz, J., & Larson, W. (1999). Space Mission Analysis and Design, Space Technology Library (3rd Ed.), Torrance, CA: Larson and Microcosm inc.
89
Luan, W. S., Fung, N. S., Nawawi, M., & Hong, T. S. (2005). Experienced and inexperienced Internet users among preservice teachers: Their use and attitudes toward the Internet. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 90-103.
Experienced and inexperienced Internet users among pre-service teachers: Their use and attitudes toward the Internet
Wong Su Luan
Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia Tel: +6-03-89468175 Fax:+6-03-89435386 suluan@educ.upm.edu.my
Ng Siew Fung
Cheras Secondary School, Jalan Yaacob Latif, 56000 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia nsfung2000@yahoo.com
Mokhtar Nawawi
Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia mokhtar@educ.upm.edu.my
Tang Sai Hong

Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia saihong@eng.upm.edu.my
Abstract
Much has been said about the benefits of the Internet as a teaching and learning tool but to realize these benefits, teachers must be willing and able to use the Internet effectively in their teaching. Studies have also clearly shown that the likeliness of teachers using the Internet effectively and the success of Internet utilization was very much related to the users attitudes toward the Internet (Liaw, 2002; Moon & Kim, 2001; Johnson & Hignite, 2000). This paper describes a study on pre-service teachers with differing levels of Internet experience, at one of the premier universities in Malaysia, to assess their Internet use and attitudes toward the Internet. The study is exploratory in essence and seeks to ascertain the comfort level of pre-service teachers where the Internet is concerned and hence to provide a glimpse of the future of the Internet in education within the Malaysian context.
Keywords
Pre-service teachers, Internet Use, Internet Attitudes, Internet experience
Introduction
The Internet is without doubt the fastest growing communication technology today (Dlodlo & Sithole, 2001). It took only four years for the Internet to achieve the same mark as the television revolution, which took 13 years to reach 50 million viewers (Molosi, 2001). With such rapid speed, the education field has not been spared the onslaught of this revolution. The Internet revolution has brought drastic changes to the area of education. It has revolutionized the way students learn and how teachers teach in the classrooms. Indeed, the permeation of the Internet technology into classrooms has created the opportunities for students to be active learners and allowed instructors to be facilitators (Anderson & Reed, 1998).
The Internet as an Educational Tool and its Impact on Teachers The Internet serves not only as a delivery medium but also as a teaching and learning tool. According to L and L (1999), three phases exist between the Internet and education. They comprised learning about the Web (getting to know its functions), learning the Web (using it for certain purposes) and learning via the Web (using it as a mode of learning).
90
The effectiveness of the Internet in the classrooms is profound when used either as a teaching tool or as a delivery medium. Mathew and Dohery-Poirier (2000) suggested that Web-Based Instruction (WBI), creates an environment where teachers will have more time working with individual students and small groups because instructions are delivered via the Web. Teachers are spared the burden of repeating their teaching tasks with the use of WBI, while communication between teachers and students are more targeted and directed (Boer, 2001). Under these circumstances, the student centred learning environment is greatly enhanced. Lessons become more interactive and students become more independent (L & L, 1999). L and L stressed that teachers and students are no longer bound by the traditional mode of learning but instead their interactions with one another is immediate, prompt, widely shared and resource supportive. This is true with the incorporation of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools such as the e-mail, instant messaging and bulletin boards. The impact of this new education technology on teachers is, therefore, undeniably immense. They will need support as they face personal, social and professional changes (Fetherston, 1999). Their responsibilities are more complicated as they are expected to be content experts, technology specialists, motivators, cooperative and collaborative learning advocates and monitors of student progress (Abtar & Kuldip, 2001). Abtar and Kuldip further added that this new learning environment instead, puts the lone teacher in a challenging and demanding work condition. Teachers also constantly need to face unfamiliar format and teaching strategies (Stoney & Wild, 1998). Duggan, Hess, Morgan, Kim and Wilson (2001) stressed that within any format or teaching strategies, the likeliness of teachers using the Internet effectively could be influenced by their attitudes toward the Internet. In the Malaysian context, the impact of the Internet on education has not been very encouraging. A study by Ramayah, Muhamad and Bushra (2003) found that the level of Internet use among university students was still far below expectation. They used the Internet mainly to search for information and to access their e-mail. In another study, Wong, Kamariah, Ramlah, Rohani and Tang (2003) reported that less than 50% of pre-service teachers in a government funded university possessed a high level of Internet skills despite having just completed an introductory Information Technology course that comprised six hours of hands on training on the Internet. This is worrying because only those with good basic Internet skills tend to have positive attitudes toward the Internet (Hong, Ridzuan & Kuek, 2003) and pre-service teachers attitudes toward the Internet can significantly influence the future integration of the Internet into their teaching.
Objectives of the Study

The specific objectives of this study are to 1). explore the types of Internet services used by pre-service teachers; 2). explore pre-service teachers attitudes toward the Internet; 3).explore the relationship between pre-service teachers use of the Internet and their attitudes toward the Internet; 4). determine if differences exist in Internet service preference between pre-service teachers with differing levels of Internet experience; 5). determine if differences exist in attitudes between pre-service teachers with differing levels of Internet experience. In this study, attitude is measured in terms of perceived usefulness, affection and perceived control while Internet experience is measured in terms of numbers of years of using the Internet.
Method
Participants The target population of this study was pre-service teachers at the Faculty of Educational Studies, UPM (N= 1601). The number of participants accessible at the time of data collection was 313 and the participants were from seven different programs. Of the 313 participants, three of them had no experience using the Internet. According to them, they avoided using the Internet because they did not know how to use it. They also reported that they did not have the time to learn how to use the Internet. Data from these participants were eliminated. The remaining participants were from the following programs: Bachelor of Education majoring in Agricultural Science (AS), Information Technology (IT), Home Science (HS), Counseling and Guidance (C&G), Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL), Teaching Malay as a First Language (TMFL) and Physical Education (PE). Table 1 shows the number of participants from each program.
91
Table 1. Number of participants according to programs Program Number of participants AS 46 IT 16 HS 53 C&G 54 TESL 48 TMFL 40 PE 53 Total 310
The mean age of the participants was 22.63 (S.D.= 3.74). The youngest and oldest participants were 19 and 39 years old respectively. The participants were composed of 238 females and 72 males.
Instrumentation The instrument developed for this study was in the national language (Malay Language). The instrument comprised three sections (Appendix A) as follows: 1. First section: Participants demographic background, Internet experience and sources of Internet knowledge; 2. Second section: Types of the Internet services used; 3. Third section: Attitude towards the Internet All items in the second section except for items 2.9, 2.10 and 2.11, were adapted from the instrument developed by Hills and Argyle (2003). Hills and Argyle categorized the types of Internet use into work, social, use at home and leisure. All the items in the third section were adapted from Tsai, Lin and Tsai (2001). Tsai et al. measured attitudes toward the Internet in terms of perceived usefulness, affection, perceived control and behavior. Part E of the second section comprised 11 different types of Internet services and the participants were required to indicate their frequency of use for each service. The items were measured by a five point Likert-type scale, ranging from never, rarely (average of 15 minutes per day), sometimes (average of between 15 minutes and 1 hour per day), frequently (average of between 1 and 3 hours per day) and very frequently (average of more than 3 hours per day). For this study, the Internet services were grouped into three categories: information (items 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.10), social (items 2.2, 2.3, 2.7, 2.9) and leisure (items 2.8, 2.11, 2.12). The participants were also required to state the average number of hours per week spent on the Internet. Fifteen items measured attitudes toward the Internet in section three of the instrument (three items were removed after conducting pilot test). Each item was measured against a five point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (5) to strongly agree (1). This meant that the lower the mean scores, the more positive participants attitudes were as the scores given for the items were in reversed order. The subscales that made up this construct were perceived usefulness (items 3.3, 3.6, 3.8, 3.11, 3.14), affection (items 3.2, 3.5, 3.7, 3.10, 3.13) and perceived control (items 3.1, 3.4, 3.9, 3.12, 3.15). Items 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.10 and 3.13 were reverse scored.
Validation and pilot test Two of the authors of this paper content validated all the items in the questionnaire. The items were also checked for clarity. The item The Internet can allow me to do more interesting and imaginative work was changed to The Internet can allow me to do more imaginative work because it was double barreled in nature. A qualified person with vast experience in the field of computer technology but not involved in the research was also asked to validate the items. All three content validators found the items to be suitable in the Malaysian context. A double back translation was carried out on items to ensure that the items in the Malay Language were equivalent to the original English version. Three bilingual schoolteachers were involved in the translation process. The first teacher translated the original English version into Malay. The second teacher then retranslated the Malay version into English without looking at the original version. Finally, the third teacher compared the original and the translated English versions. The teacher agreed that the meanings of both versions were consistent.
92
The instrument was pilot tested on a group of teachers from the TESL program. They were not included in the actual study. Twenty-nine out of thirty respondents answered the items fully. Of the 29 respondents, seven were males. The mean age was 32.00 years old (S.D.= 4.00) with the youngest and oldest respondents being 25 and 42 years old respectively. One of the items from the behavioral construct was removed to improve the reliability of the instrument. The removal of this item meant that there would only be two items left to measure this construct. The authors were then concerned that the small number of items would not be a valid measure of behavior and eventually decided to remove the entire construct from the final version of the instrument. The Cronbach alphas recorded for sections two and three were .62 and .77 (after the removal of three items) respectively. One of the authors of this paper collected the data for the pilot test at the beginning of a lecture with the prior permission of the course instructor. The same author was present throughout the data collection process to entertain any queries from the participants. There were, however, no queries suggesting that the items were clear and comprehensible.
Data collection
Data were collected from the participants on a voluntary basis at the beginning of their lectures with prior permission from the instructors involved. As in the pilot study, the same author was present throughout the data collection process. After a brief introduction of the research, the survey forms were distributed to students. The same author waited until everyone finished and collected the survey forms. On the average, students took about 10 minutes to answer the survey forms. There were also no queries from the participants.
Results
Participants demographic background, Internet experience and sources of Internet knowledge The participants reported spending an average of 3.41 hours (S.D.= 3.21) per week on the Internet. The majority of them did not have Internet access at home (n= 197) while the rest had (n= 113). Those with such access spent an average of 4.20 hours (S.D.= 4.09) surfing per week while those without such access spent an average of 2.96 hours (S.D.= 2.47) per week Table 2 shows the various sources of learning the Internet against the number of participants. The most common source was learning through friends. Most of the participants indicated that they learned from more than one source.
Table 2. Sources of Internet learning Sources Number of participants Learning through friends Learning on their own Learning while in school Learning through courses while in university Learning from commercial computer centres Others 214 188 120 109 92 16
Percentage (%) 69.0 60.6 38.7 35.2 29.7 5.2
Use of Internet services The Cronbachs alphas for sections two and three for the actual study were recorded at .78 and.77. These values were considered high as they surpassed the minimal consistency guidelines (>.70) recommended by DeVellis (1991). Table 3 shows that the participants used the Internet mostly for information related purposes as indicated by the high mean value (>3.70). The information sought by the students online was mainly for their studies. The two least favored activities among the participants were online shopping and banking as indicated by the low means (1.08 and 1.25). This shows that students have a higher tendency to use the Internet for gaining information and to use it least for socializing. It also shows that the students treated the Internet as a useful learning tool.
93
Service Getting information for studiesi Getting information in generali E-mail for studiesi E-mail to friendss Downloading free softwares Accessing online newspaperi Online gamesl Online discussionl E-mail to familys Online bankings Online shoppings i= information, s= social, l= leisure
Table 3. Types of Internet services Number of users 305 300 269 250 208 184 148 118 114 44 14
Mean frequency of use 3.800.96 3.711.17 2.91 1.17 2.481.07 2.361.25 2.131.18 1.851.07 1.711.08 1.540.81 1.250.69 1.08.411
Attitude towards the Internet Attitude towards the Internet was measured in terms of perceived usefulness, affection and perceived control. Table 4 presents the participants means scores with the standard deviations of the three subscales. The participants scored the lowest on the affection subscale (an average of 1.93 per item) followed by the perceived usefulness subscale (an average of 1.95 per item) and lastly the perceived control subscale (an average of 2.47 per item). This means that the participants showed feelings that were more positive and perceived the Internet as useful. The results, however, show that they did not perceive themselves to be in control when using the Internet suggesting a lack of skill in navigating through the Internet and needing assistance to surf the Internet. On the whole the participants were nevertheless aware of the benefits of the Internet and were willing to use it to assist them in important tasks.
Table 4. Scores of perceived usefulness, affection and perceived control Subscale Number of Items Possible range Actual range Mean Perceived usefulness 5 5-25 5-24 9.74 Affection 5 5-25 5-25 9.64 Perceived control 5 5-25 6-19 12.34 The lower the mean scores, the more positive the attitudes
S.D. 2.50 2.85 2.55
The relationships between pre-service teachers attitudes toward the Internet and two other variables were also investigated using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. The variables were the participants length of time being online per week and their use of the Internet. For this analysis, the scores of items representing types of services were summed up to arrive at a composite score. Cohens (1988) rule of thumb was used for both relationships. There was a negative correlation between their attitudes toward the Internet and the time spent being online [r= -.153, n= 310, P= .007]. The strength of relationship was considered as almost negligible.There was also a negative correlation between attitudes and Internet use [r= -.314, n= 310, P < .0005]. The strength of relationship was considered as moderate. Both relationships were found to be statistically significant. The results suggests that the more positive attitudes they have toward the Internet, the more time they spent on the Internet for various purposes.
Internet experience and preferences of Internet services A one-way between groups multivariate analysis of variance was performed to investigate whether participants with differing levels of Internet experience had any preferences for different types of Internet services. Three dependent variables (types of Internet services) were measured: social, information and leisure. The independent variable was Internet experience that was categorized into two levels; those with at least one year Internet experience (Group 1) and those with more than one year experience (Group 2). Group 1 was considered to be inexperienced Internet users while Group 2 was considered to be experienced Internet users. Preliminary assumption testing was conducted to check for normality, linearity, univariate and multivariate outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices and multicollinearity. No serious violation was noted
94
except for the equality of variance for the dependent variable (leisure) which was not met. Pallant (2001) suggested that if this assumption was violated, a more conservative alpha level for determining the significance for that variable be set. Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) recommended an alpha of .025 or .01. The authors decided to use the most stringent alpha level, .01 for the entire analysis because of the aforesaid violation. There was a statistical significant difference between Groups 1 and 2 on the combined dependent variables: F(3,306)= 9.79, P< .0005; Wilks Lambda= 0.912, partial eta squared= 0.088. When the results for the dependent variables were considered separately using the Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .003, the mean scores for the two variables reached statistical significance (Table 5).
Table 5. Differences between Groups 1 and 2 in terms of types of Internet use Group 1 Group 2 Dependent variables Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F P Partial Eta Squared Social 7.49 2.03 8.94 2.71 13.168 .000* .041 Information 10.51 2.77 12.95 3.05 28.132 .000* .084 Leisure 2.92 1.32 3.68 1.89 7.435 .007 .024 * Significant at p< .003
The variables were information [F(1,308)= 28.132, P< .0005, partial eta squared= 0.084] and social [F(1,308)= 13.168, P< .0005, partial eta squared= 0.041] The mean score for the variable, leisure was not statistically significant [F(1,308)= 7.435, P= .007, partial eta squared= 0.024]. This suggests that participants with more than a year of Internet experience used the Internet more for information and social purposes compared to those who had a year or less of Internet experience. However, there was no statistical significant difference between them when measured in terms of leisure.
Internet experience and attitude towards the Internet A one-way between groups multivariate analysis of variance was also performed to determine whether participants with differing levels of Internet experience differed in terms of their attitudes toward the Internet. The three dependent variables (attitudes) were perceived usefulness, perceived control and affection. Preliminary assumption testing was conducted to check for normality, linearity, univariate and multivariate outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices and multicollinearity. No serious violation was noted except for the presence of multivariate outliers. Pallant (2001) suggested that if this happened, two alternatives were available. The data could be transformed or the cases with outliers be removed. The authors decided on the second option as only three cases needed to be deleted. This left 307 participants as samples. The alpha level, .01 was still used for this second MANOVA analysis. There was a statistical significant difference between Groups 1 and 2 for attitudes: F(3,303)= 6.60, P< .0005; Wilks Lambda= 0.939, partial eta squared= 0.061. Using the Benferrroni method, each ANOVA was tested at the adjusted alpha level of .003. The results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Differences between Groups 1 and 2 in terms of attitudes Group 1 Group 2 Dependent variables Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F P Partial Eta Squared Perceived usefulness 10.22 1.88 9.57 2.35 3.403 .066 .011 Perceived control 13.59 2.48 12.06 2.47 16.152 .000* .050 Affection 10.75 3.02 9.33 2.55 12.260 .001* .039 * Significant at p< .003
The ANOVA on the mean scores for perceived control was statistically significant [F(1,305)= 16.152, P< .0005, partial eta squared= 0.050]; the mean scores for affection was also statistically significant [F(1,305)= 12.260, p= .001, partial eta squared= 0.024]. The mean scores for perceived usefulness was not statistically significant [F(1,305)= 3.403, P= .066, partial eta squared= 0.011]. The results suggested that participants with more than a
95
year Internet experience had better control over the use of the Internet. Both groups, however, did not show any statistical significant difference in terms of their perceived usefulness of the Internet.
Discussion
An overwhelming majority of participants involved in this study indicated that they learned to use the Internet through several sources. As learning through friends was most common, it can be assumed that the participants were more comfortable being online when someone who was Internet savvy accompanied them. The results also showed that besides learning through friends, a high number of participants were self-taught. These findings are consistent with those by Duggan et al. (2001) and Wei He and Jacobson (1996) who found self-taught or learning from peers to be the most common methods. The participants spent an average of 3.41 hours per week when asked to indicate how long they used the Internet either at home or in campus. This is much higher than that of Nigerian students where the average online time per week was only one hour (Jagboro 2003). However it is rather low when compared to a developed nation such as England where Hills and Argyle (2003) reported that their participants in Oxfordshire, England , spent an average of 7.9 hours online per week. Malaysian pre-service teachers average online time may thus be said to be moderate. The moderate online time among the participants in this study may be due to insufficient Internet facilities in the university concerned. The computer laboratories in the university were usually fully booked and utilized for practical sessions. They were seldom available to students to surf the Internet during their free time. Even those with Internet access at home spent an average of only 4.20 hours online per week. This is still unsatisfactory compared to the average online time reported by Hills and Argyle (2003). This moderate level of use may be due to the high Internet subscription rates in Malaysia where users pay by the minute. The longer they used the Internet, the more they had to pay. This would certainly discourage users from using the Internet for a long time. By charging a high rate, it was possible that participants who did not have Internet access at home were deterred from subscribing to any Internet services. Affordability or the ability to pay for Internet access has been proven to be a dominant factor in determining the number of Internet subscribers (Minges, 2003). When the participants were online, almost all of them used the Internet for searching information that was mostly for educational and general purposes. They, however, seemed to spend longer hours online searching for educational related information. It could be assumed that the most popular Internet service used was information related. This assumption is supported by a study by Duggan et al. (2001) which reported that university students usually used the Internet mostly for term paper research, course notes retrieval and consultation with lecturers. They spent longer hours on this type of service compared to the others. The use of the e-mail for their studies was also prevalent among the participants. It is not surprising that the preferred services were related to information rather than for social or leisure purposes as the participants were undergraduate students in a university. The results concur with the results reported by Ramayah et al. (2003) that undergraduates used the Internet mainly for seeking information. The result of this study was, however, in contrast to findings by Mathews and Schrum (2003). They reported that although students in a large research institution in the southeast United States used the Internet for academic purposes, they spent less time on it compared to nonacademic matters. The least used services were online banking and shopping. Online banking and shopping are rather new services in this country and it may take a while for people to see the benefits of using such services. Moreover, most Malaysian undergraduate students do not own credit cards as banks require their customers to have steady incomes and jobs. It is, therefore, unlikely that undergraduate students own credit cards unless they are given supplementary cards by their parents or if they have worked before. As online shopping is usually payable by credit cards, not many students would be able to carry out such activities. Since the introduction of online banking in this country four years ago, many banking customers still express distrust at such services. The relatively higher scores on the perceived control subscale suggest a lack of skill while online. It can be assumed that they would prefer to have someone more experienced to guide them while online. Despite the moderate level of Internet use generally, the participants attitudes toward the Internet when assessed, were positive. Tsai et al (2001) suggested this could indicate that they had low anxiety with high confidence when using the Internet. It was highly likely that the participants would not be phobic to future use of the Internet as
96
well. They also perceived the Internet as a useful tool. The results were substantiated by the fact that the participants used the Internet for many purposes as shown in Table 3. They seemed to believe that the technology helped to improve their productivity as students in a higher institution. They regarded the Internet more as an educational tool rather than a tool for seeking entertainment or improving their social lives. According to Duggan et al. (2001), those who favored the Internet as an educational tool tended to share them with their friends. Duggan et al. went on further to suggest that this kind of feelings might actually enhance social use of this technology. The authors of this research also found that the more positive attitudes the participants had, the longer they stayed online. This result concurred with Anderson and Reeds (1998) findings which revealed that positive attitudes were related to increased Internet use. Students with longer Internet exposure time and more opportunities to use the Internet in campus were found to have more positive attitudes toward learning to use the technology (Hong et al., 2003). The results from MANOVA revealed that those with differing levels of Internet experience differed significantly in their preferences of the Internet services. Participants with more experience used the Internet more for seeking information and improving their social lives. When compared in terms of entertainment, no statistical significant difference was detected suggesting that Internet experience was not related to students relaxation preferences. The results from the second MANOVA conducted in this study also found that there was a statistical significant difference between those with differing levels of Internet when measured in terms of their attitudes toward the Internet. Those who had more experience using the Internet were in better control while online compared to those with less experience. The experienced participants appeared more independent while online and it was likely that they surfed alone. The results also suggest that these participants tended to be certain of what they were looking for and could navigate through the web with ease. In terms of perceived usefulness, both groups did not show any statistical significant difference.
Conclusion
This research shows that the vast majority of pre-service teachers in this public university used the Internet for many reasons. They appeared to be aware that the Internet held many benefits for them as undergraduate students in a higher learning institution. Their attitudes toward this technology were positive. Although much need to be done to increase Internet use and skills among pre-service teachers, this finding proves encouraging as studies have clearly shown that the success of Internet utilization was very much related to the users attitudes toward the Internet (Liaw, 2002; Moon & Kim, 2001; Johnson & Hignite, 2000). The tendency of those who have more positive attitudes, to use and integrate the Internet in their teaching-learning process in the classrooms is very high. It is likely that they will integrate the new technology effectively in their classroom instruction as they are convinced of the benefits of the Internet either as a teaching tool or as a learning medium. The research also provides some evidence that Internet experience plays a pivotal role in increasing Internet use. Experienced Internet users tended to remain online longer than those with lesser experience each time they access the Internet. The more experienced they were, the more likely they would use it for information related activities compared to activities of a social nature. Minges (2003) asserted that Internet use was closely linked to education. Internet experience also encouraged positive attitudes toward the Internet. Pre-service teachers with longer Internet exposure had more control over the Internet. It should be noted that this study is preliminary and exploratory in nature. All data collected were based entirely on the honesty and how the participants perceived their use and attitudes toward the Internet. A further limitation of this study was that it provided only a snapshot of the time when data were collected. It also must be recognized that the participants involved were undergraduate students who majored in education in one public university and had volunteered to participate in this study. Therefore, caution must be taken when generalizing any findings for the entire population at the faculty where this study was conducted.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Peter Hills and Dr. Tsai Chin-Chung for granting permission to use their instruments in this study. The authors would also like to thank Wong Su Chen for her assistance. Lastly, the authors are grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for the helpful comments and suggestions.
97
References
Abtar, K, A., & Kuldip, K. (2001). Teacher survival in a web-based constructivist learning environment: a malaysian experience. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2001 (1), 902-905, retrieved November 14, 2004 from http://dl.aace.org/8621. Anderson, D. K., & Reed, W. M. (1998). The effects of Internet instruction, prior computer experience, and learning style on teachers' Internet attitudes and knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19 (3), 227-246. Boer, W. (2001). Flexibility, efficiency and enrichment in www-based learning environments?. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2001 (1), 374-379, retrieved November 14, 2004 from http://dl.aace.org/8474. Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development, Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications. Dlodlo, N., & Sithole, N. (2001). The Internet as a tool for a revolution in education in Africa: A dream or reality. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2001 (1), 425430, retrieved November 14, 2004 from http://dl.aace.org/8489. Duggan, A., Hess, B., Morgan, D., Kim, S., & Wilson, K. (2001). Measuring students attitudes toward educational use of the Internet. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25 (3), 267-281. Fetherston, T. (1999). Pedagogical challenges for the world wide web. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 1999 (1), 1245-1246, retrieved November 14, 2004 from http://dl.aace.org/4435. Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2003). Uses of the Internet and their relationships with individual differences in personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 59-70. Hong, K. S., Ridzuan, A. A., & Kuek, M. K. (2003). Students' attitudes toward the use of the Internet for learning: A study at a university in Malaysia. Educational Technology & Society, 6 (2), 45-49. Jagboro, K. O. (2003). A study of Internet usage in Nigerian universities: a case study of Obafemi Awolowo University. First Monday, 8 (2), retrieved August 20, 2004 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_2/jagboro/index.html. Johnson, R. A., & Hignite, M. A. (2000). Student usage of the World Wide Web: A comparative study. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 40 (4), 93-97. L, T., & L, Q. (1999). A web-based study of students attitudes towards the web. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 1999 (1), 747-752, retrieved November 16, 2004 from http://dl.aace.org/4338. Liaw, S. S. (2002). An Internet survey for perceptions of computers and the world wide web: Relationship, prediction, and difference. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18, 17-35. Mathew, N., & Dohery-Poirer, M. (2000). Using the world wide web to enhance classroom instruction, retrieved November 15, 2004 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_3/mathew/. Mathews, D., & Schrum, L. (2003). High-speed Internet use and academic gratifications in the college residence. Internet and Higher Education, 6, 125-144. Minges, M. (2003). ITU digital access index: worlds first global ICT ranking education and affordability key to boosting new technology adoption, retrieved November 26, 2004 from http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2003/30.html.
98
Molosi, K. (2001). Making the Internet work for Africa. Computers in Africa, Oct./Nov., 37-38. Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World Wide Web context. Information & Management, 38, 217-230. Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manua, Canberra: McPherson. Ramayah, T., Muhamad, J., & Bushra, A. (2003). Internet usage among students of institutions of higher learning : The role of motivational variables. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Asian Academy of Applied Business, July 10-12, 2003, Sabah, Malaysia. Stoney, S., & Wild, M. (1998). Motivation and interface design: Maximizing learning opportunities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 40-50. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistic (3rd Ed.), New York: HarperCollins. Tsai, C. C., Lin, S. J., & Tsai, M. J. (2001). Developing an Internet attitude scale for high school students. Computers & Education, 37, 41-51. Wei He, P., & Jacobson, T. E. (1996). What are they doing with the Internet? A study of user information seeking behaviours. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 1, 31-51. Wong, S. L., Kamariah, A. B., Ramlah, H., Rohani, A. T., & Tang, S. H. (2003) Assessing IT preparedness among pre-service teachers at Universiti Putra Malaysia. Jurnal Teknologi, 38 (E), 1-14.
99
Appendix A Internet Use and Attitude towards the Internet Survey

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your responses will provide valuable insight into preteachers' Internet use and attitudes toward the Internet. Please answer each question in the following three sections to the best of your ability.
SECTION 1
Please complete Parts A, B and C by placing checkmarks in the appropriate boxes and filling in the blanks for written answers. Part A: Background The purpose of this part is to collect some basic information about your background. 1.1 1.2 Age Program of study ____________years B.Ed (Teaching Malay as a First Language) B.Ed (Teaching English as a Second Language) B.Ed (Agricultural Science) B.Ed (Home Economics) B.Ed (Physical Education) B.Ed (Counseling and Guidance) B.Ed (Information Technology) 1.3 Gender Male Female 1.4 Yes No
Do you have access to the Internet at home?
Part B: Internet Experience The purpose of this section is to collect some basic information about your Internet experience. 1.5 Do you have experience in using the Internet? Yes (Proceed to Question 1.6) No (Proceed to Question 1.7)
1.6
How long have you been using the Internet?
____________years
1.7
If you answer 'No' in question 1.5, please indicate why. (You may place more than one checkmark in the appropriate boxes) (You do not need to proceed to Sections 2 and 3) Don't know how to use the Internet No time to learn about the Internet No time to use the Internet
100
No interest at all Others (Please indicate)
Part C: Source of Internet knowledge The purpose of this section is to gather some information about the source of your Internet knowledge.
1.8
I gained my Internet knowledge from: (You may place more than one checkmark in the appropriate boxes) courses at university courses at commercial computer center school self-study friends Others (Please indicate)
SECTION 2
Please complete Parts D and E by placing checkmarks in the appropriate boxes and filling in the blanks for written answers.
Part D: Length of Internet use 2.1 On the average, how long do you use the Internet in a week?
____________hours
Part E: Frequency of Internet Use The purpose of this part is to determine the frequency of your Internet use on a scale of: 1= Never 2= Rarely (Average of 15 minutes per day) 3= Sometimes (Average of between 15 minutes and 1 hour per day) 4= Frequently (Average of between 1 and 3 hours per day) 5= Very Frequently (Average of more than 3 hours per day) 1 2.2 2.3 E-mail to friends E-mail to family 2 3 4 5
101
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12
Obtain information in general E-mail for studies Obtain information for studies Online banking Online shopping Download software Access online newspaper Online discussions Online games
SECTION 3
Please complete Part F by placing checkmarks in the appropriate boxes.
Part F: Attitudes toward the Internet The purpose of this part is to assess your attitudes toward the Internet on a scale of: 1= Strongly Agree 2= Agree 3= Not Sure 4= Disagree 5= Strongly Disagree 1 3.1 I could probably teach myself most of the things I need to know about the Internet I hesitate to use the Internet in case I look stupid The Internet can allow me to do more imaginative work I need an experienced person nearby when I use the Internet If given the opportunity to use the Internet, I am afraid that I might damage it in some way The Internet makes society more advanced The Internet makes me feel uncomfortable The Internet enlarges my scope I do not need someone to tell me the best way to use the Internet I feel bored toward using the Internet
102
3.2 3.3 3.4
3.5
3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9
3.10
3.11 3.12
The Internet makes a great contribution to human life I can use the Internet independently, without the assistance of others When using the Internet, I am not quite confident about what I am doing The Internet helps me acquire relevant information I need If I get problems using the Internet, I can usually solve them one way or the other
3.13
3.14 3.15
103
Aduwa-Ogiegbaen, S. E., & Iyamu, E. O. S. (2005). Using Information and Communication Technology in Secondary Schools in Nigeria: Problems and Prospects. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 104-112.
Using Information and Communication Technology in Secondary Schools in Nigeria: Problems and Prospects
Samuel Ereyi Aduwa-Ogiegbaen and Ede Okhion Sunday Iyamu
Department of Educatinal Psychology & Curriculum studies Faculty of Education, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria philbet2@yahoo.co.uk eosiyamu@uniben.edu
Abstract
Though it has been rightly said that what is wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology; there is no doubt that modern life is dominated by technology. There is universal recognition of the need to use Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education as we enter the era of globalization where the free flow of information via satellite and the internet hold sway in global information dissemination of knowledge. Already, Nigeria is on he wrong side of the international digital divide, as it has not made significant effort to integrate ICT into secondary school curriculum. A great deal of instructional and administrative work in secondary school in Nigeria is still carried out manually. This paper, therefore, examines the major obstacles militating against the use of ICT in secondary education in Nigeria. It identifies he high cost of computer hardware and software; weak infrastructure; lack of human skills and knowledge in ICT, and lack of relevant software appropriate and culturally suitable to Nigeria as the major stumbling block o the adoption of ICT in secondary education in Nigeria. Also, secondary schools in Nigeria are not given adequate funds to provide furniture, relevant textbooks and adequate classroom let alone being given adequate fund for high-tech equipment. At present the cost of subscribing to the Internet is too high for many of the impoverished secondary schools in Nigeria. In modern society, Nigeria needs ICT to aid teaching and learning and educational management. ICT is an instrument for the economic and technological development in the 21st century; therefore, Nigeria cannot afford to be on the wrong side of the digital divide.
Keywords
Information and Communication Technology, Cyber Education, Virtual Learning Environment, Internet Gateway, Nigerias Telecommunication
Introduction
The role of technology in teaching and learning is rapidly becoming one of the most important and widely discussed issues in contemporary education policy (Rosen and Well, 1995; and Thierer, 2000). Most experts in the field of education agreed that, when properly used, information and communication technology hold great promise to improve teaching and learning in addition to shaping workforce opportunities. Poole (1996) has indicated that computer illiteracy is now regarded as the new illiteracy. This has actually gingered a new and strong desire to equip schools with computer facilities and qualified personal necessary to produce technologically proficient and efficient students in developed countries of the world. There is no doubt that computer can aid the instructional process and facilitate students learning. Many studies have found positive effect associated with technology aided instruction (Burnett, 1994, and Fitzgerald and Warner, 1996). In the more advanced industrialized nations, there has been a staggering amount of research and publication related to ICT use for educational purposes during the past decade. Today, nearly everyone in the industrialized nations gained access to ICT and the purchase of computers for school use in such nations as the United States has been increasing in such a pace that is difficult to keep track of how many computer machines are now in American schools (Harper, 1987). Becker (1986) reported a comprehensive survey of the instructional uses of computers in United States public and non-public schools. The report suggested that over one million computers were in American elementary and secondary schools and that more than fifteen million students used them during 1985. The report also says half-a-million teacher used computers during he same period and that half of U.S. secondary schools (about 16,500 schools) owned 15 or more computers. Also, over 7500 elementary schools owned 15 or more computers. It has been almost two decade since the figures quoted above were released. There is no doubt that those figures would have increased tremendously since then. Bergheim and Chin (1984) reported that the US government made available $529 million to schools out of which 60 to70 percent was spent on computer education. However, in the US administrations fiscal 2001 budget, more than $900 million was earmarked for educational technologies (Hess & Leal, 2001)
104
In Britain, the story is the same as the wider availability of computers in schools was made possible through government funding largely through the Local Education Authorities (LEA). Visscher et al (2003) reported that following the Education Reform Act in 1988, the central government made available $325 million, over time, to promote the use of computers in school administration and management. Just as the United States and Britain have been budgeting huge sum of money for cyber education, so have other developed nations been doing same. Even many developing nations have embraced ICT. In Africa, concerted efforts have been made by many governments to initiate Internet connectivity and technology training programs. Such programs link schools around the world that in order to improve education, enhance cultural understanding and develop skills that youths need for securing jobs in the 21st century. In Uganda, an interconnectivity programme known as Uganda School Net is dedicated to extending educational technology throughout Uganda (Carlson & Firpo, 2001). In Senegal, teachers and students are using computers extensively as information tools. These programs in African countries mentioned are supported by their government through the ministries of Education. In a rapidly changing world of global market competition, automation, and increasing democratization, basic education is necessary for an individual to have the capacity and capability to access and apply information. Such ability and capability must find bearing in information and communication technology in the global village. The Economic Commission for Africa has indicated that the ability to access and effectively utilize information is no longer a luxury but a necessity for development. Unfortunately, many developing countries, especially in Africa, are already on the wrong side of the digital divide in the educational use of ICT.
Why does Nigeria need ICT? The question of why Nigeria needs information and communication technology may appear too simplistic and unnecessary. However, the political conditions in Nigeria for the past thirty years leave no room for continuity. Over the years, political power in Nigeria has been used to entrench mediocrity, corruption in high places, misplace priority, and consumer culture. The direct effect of these is a battered economy and an educational system that is decaying by the day. In 1988, in an attempt to keep pace with development in computer education, Nigeria enacted a Policy on Computer Education. According to Okebukola (1997). The plan was to establish pilot schools and thereafter diffuse the innovation, first to all secondary schools and then to the Primary schools. Unfortunately, beyond the distribution and installation of computers in the Federal Government Colleges, the project did not really take off the ground (P.16). Okebukola (1997) concluded that computer is not part of classroom technology in over 90% of public schools in Nigeria. Thus the chalkboard and textbooks continue to dominate classroom activities in most secondary schools in Nigeria. If a country such as Uganda which has less than a-fifth of Nigerias resources, is now using information and communication technology to help secondary schools students to become better information users, why is Nigeria lagging behind? The answer is simply mismanagement of the huge resources of the country and inability of political leaders to prioritize Nigerias developmental needs. There is no doubt that in the current harsh economic competition, the private sector in Nigeria has embraced ICT to stay afloat. The banking sector, insurance, manufacturing industries and multinational companies in the oil sector have embraced multimedia technology to bring innovative solutions to their current challenges. If Nigerian wants to be a major player in the global market place of ideas and prepare her citizens for the new environment of today and the future, the country should embrace ICT for the following reasons: ICT as aids to teaching and leaning; ICT as a tool for management; ICT as instrument for economic development; ICT as instrument of high technological development, and ICT as a course of study.
ICT as aids to teaching and learning The importance of ICT is quite evidence from the educational perspective. Though the chalkboard, textbooks, radio/television and film have been used for educational purpose over the years, none has quite impacted on the educational process like the computer. While television and film impact only on the audiovisual faculties of users, the computer is capable of activating the senses of sight, hearing and touch of the users. ICT has the capacity to provide higher interactive potential for users to develop their individual, intellectual and creative ability. The main purpose of ICT consists just in the development of human mental resources, which allow people to both successfully apply the existing knowledge and produce new knowledge (Shavinina, 2001,P.70).
105
The collective and rigid nature of learning and the passive nature of the learning associated with the use of radio, television and film do not contribute any innovative changes to traditional methods in education system. Information and communication technologies are being used in the developed world for instructional functions. Today, computers perform a host of functions in teaching and learning as many nations are adding computer literacy, reading and writing literacy as skills students will need for succeeding in a technologically developed world (Thomas, 1987). At the instructional level, computers are used by pupils to learn reading, mathematics, social studies, art, music, simulation and health practices. In educational multimedia application Shavinina (1997) asserted that todays learning contents are domainspecific products and that they dominate the world market. According to Shavinina (1997), domain-specific educational multimedia is directed to knowledge acquisition skills development in the language arts, history, physics, literature, biology and so on. There is no doubt that ICT provides productive teaching and learning in order to increase peoples creative and intellectual resources especially in todays information society. Through the simultaneous use of audio, text, multicolor images, graphics, motion, ICT gives ample and exceptional opportunities to the students to develop capacities for high quality learning and to increase their ability to innovate. Nigeria cannot afford to lag behind in using multimedia to raise the intellectual and creative resources of her citizens. This is particularly important for children whose adulthood will blossom in a cyber environment entirely different from that of the present (Shavinina, 1997). Nigerian children need to be taught by radically new educational programme and variety of educational contents with multimedia playing key role.
ICT as tool for educational management It is not uncommon to find that many establishments in Nigeria, including educational institutions, still keep records in files and tucked them away in filling cabinets where they accumulate dust. Many of these files are often eaten up by rodents and cockroaches thus rendering them irretrievable. A great deal of routine administrative work in government establishment is still done manually with the state and the Federal government showing little or no interest in embracing ICT. The official administrative drudgery in government offices and education institutions can be better managed through ICT. Educational administrative functions include a wide variety of activities such as educational governance, supervision, support services, infrastructure, finance, budgeting, accounting, personnel selection and training system monitoring and evaluation, facilities procurement and management, equipment maintenance, research, and so on (Thomas, 1987). In most Nigeria schools, officials still go through the laborious exercise of manually registering students, maintaining records of pupil, performance, keeping inventory list of supplies, doing cost accounting, paying bills, printing reports and drawing architectural designs. The huge man-hour spend on these exercises can be drastically reduced with ICT to enhance overall management procedure. Thomas (1987), said that Computers bring great speed and accuracy to each of these tasks, along with the convenience of storing large quantities of information on small disks or tapes (P.5). The prevailing condition in school management in Nigeria is disheartening and discouraging. The country seems to be living in prehistoric times in the educational management while even developing countries in Africa such as South Africa, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania are far ahead of Nigeria in ICT applications. Despite its huge material resources and population endowment, Nigeria cannot be counted among progressive nations using ICT in educational management, as technology has become a critical tool for achieving success in education.
ICT as instrument of economic development The present government in Nigeria is pursuing the deregulation of the economy with a passion that has never been seen in the country. It is striving for a private sector driven economy hence it is selling its shares in many companies so that they can fully be managed by the private sector. Most of these companies in which government hold majority shares have been mismanaged over the years that they have become a huge burden and a financial drain-pipe to government, hence deregulation in the country today. The importance of ICT in Nigeria strongly manifests itself from an economic standpoint. Today, as a result of globalization, industrial competition is increasingly harsh and companies must not only come up with innovative
106
products and services to the global market but must do so with unprecedented speed. For the companies to survive, they need intellectual and creative employees whos novel ideas are to a certain extend a guarantee of companies existence (Shavinina 2001, P.65). Contemporary society strongly needs highly able minds that could productively solve many economic problems of today. Such highly able minds are nurtured by a countrys educational institutions. Nigeria lags considerably behind others in the development of small and medium scale enterprises, which are the mainstay of modern economy and society. Modern society desperately needs highly able citizens who can bring innovative solutions to its current challenges and at the same time produce new ideas for ongoing socio-economic and political advancement (Shavinina, 1997). Nigeria can only be part of such modern society if ICT facilities are deployed to all sectors of the economy. Because, the country is already on the wrong side of the digital divide, it must lay the proper foundation for ICT use in the education sector.
ICT as tool for higher technological development In todays world, not only are we surrounded by technology, but our primary means of reaching others in far and near places are mediated by technology. According to Elluh (1989), technology is progressively effacing the two previous environments: nature and society (p.134). The environment Elluh talked about is that which enables us to live, sets us in danger and it is immediate to us and mediates all else. He asserted that modern man cannot live without our gadgets. This is what makes human subservient to technology rather that technology being subservient to humanity. There is no doubt that one of todays realities is an extremely fast development of high-technology. This has resulted in a huge change of the individuals life in business and private settings. There is strong need to know and use modern technology in our social life, the economy, the business and education. New and sophisticated breakthroughs in high technology encourage companies to introduce technological innovations rapidly into their business practices. The United States Space Programme has benefited immensely from rapid development in high-tech and todays information and communication technology. In many parts of the developed world, cellular, satellite, and wireless technologies combined with innovative business practices are beginning to make up for the shortcomings of the traditional wire line technologies. Nigeria was introduced to cellular technologies a little over two years ago and this has revolutionized the communication industry in the country, though majorities of Nigerians are yet to benefit from the services due to high cost. If Nigeria must be part of developed world in the near future, it must embrace technology and discard some of the old habits and perspectives and retool completely. There is need for the country to re-strategize and expand its vision so as to cope with the challenges of a technological society.
ICT as a course of study The most challenging aspect of the post-industrial era is how to meet the demand of the information society that modern man is trying to build. The role of education in developing modern society cannot be overemphasized. In fact, society and education are highly interdependent. As society changes, the educational system has to change accordingly (Westera and Sloep, 2001). Today employers of labour are in search of graduates with requisite knowledge, skill and training that would help to solve problems that do not yet exist today. In recent years thousands of university graduates found it difficult to secure good paying jobs. This has been due to the fact that there are no jobs out there as many government establishments and private companies are even retrenching workers as a result of hard times being experienced by the economy. Though the Nigerian government has opened its doors to foreign investors and many of them are coming in, Nigerian graduates are not properly trained for the new positions that are opening up in the new companies being established. There is a high demand for highly skilled and technologically trained workers. Unfortunately, most Nigerian graduates acquired overdose of theoretical knowledge, which does not match well with the demands of workplace practice. Modern companies need employees that are proactive, enterprising, responsible and selfreliant professional. According to Walton (1995), modern employees represent the business human capital. Nigeria needs to replace the traditional pedagogical practices that still underpin its educational system. In a report of the World Bank sponsored research study on the state of the Nigerian graduate, Dabalen and Oni (2001) asserted that Nigerian University graduates of the past decade are poorly trained and unproductive on the job. The report indicted Nigerian University graduates as deficient in mastery of the English language and requisite technical skills. Such development calls for a rethinking of the objectives education should pursue.
107
In order to revolutionize Nigeria educational system, the country needs ICT not only as tools for communication but also as a field of study. Modern companies, especially those operated by the new foreign investors need skilled workers with basic knowledge in algorithm, flow chart design, complex programming, and web design. Nigeria also needs computer technicians and engineers. These new fields of study could be introduced as areas of study in Nigeria universities and polytechnics. Though, few Nigeria universities are already having computer study as part of their academic programs, most of them are still theoretical in nature to impact meaningfully on the society. Nigeria needs to establish a virtual learning company along the model developed and implemented at the Open University of the Netherlands. The Netherlands virtual Company was established to answer to future challenges of modern society. According to Westera and Sloep, (2002), the Netherlands Virtual Company; Is a distributed, virtual learning environment that embodies the functional structures of veracious companies; it offers students a rich and meaningful context that resembles the context of professional working in many respects; it aims to bridge the gap between education and professional working,; between theory and practice between knowledge and skills. (P.116). The virtual Learning Company is regarded as a state of the art cyber education, which strives to bring together the context of education and workplace. Nigeria has just launched its own version of Open University in Abuja after so many years of planning. The Nigeria Open University has a lot to learn from the Netherlands example by offering a concrete and meaningful environment that closely resembles the students future workplaces. The Nigeria University Commission recently established a virtual learning website but its impact is yet to be seen and it is too early to be assessed.
Obstacles to the use of ICT in secondary schools in Nigeria

There are several impediments to the successful use of information and communication technology in secondary schools in Nigeria. These are: cost, weak infrastructure, lack of skills, lack of relevant software and limited access to the Internet.
Cost The price of computer hardware and software continues to drop in most developed countries, but in developing countries, such as Nigeria, the cost of computers is several times more expensive. While a personal computer may cost less than a months wages in the United State, the average Nigeria worker may require more than two years income to buy one. Nigeria has over 6,000 public secondary schools. Majority are short of books, paper and pencils. Many of the schools lack adequate infrastructure such as classrooms and only few are equipped with television or radio. Apart from the basic computers themselves, other costs associated with peripherals such as printers, monitors, paper, modem, extra disk drives are beyond the reach of most secondary schools in Nigeria. The schools can not also afford the exorbitant Internet connection fees.
Weak infrastructure In Nigeria, a formidable obstacle to the use of information and communication technology is infrastructure deficiencies. Computer equipment was made to function with other infrastructure such as electricity under controlled conditions. For the past fifteen years Nigeria has been having difficulty providing stable and reliable electricity supply to every nook and cranny of the country without success. Currently, there is no part of the country, which can boast of electricity supply for 24 hours a day except probably areas where government officials live. There have been cases whereby expensive household appliances such as refrigerators, deep freezers and cookers have been damaged by upsurge in electricity supply after a period of power outage. Electronics equipment such as radio, television, video recorder and even computers has been damaged due to irregular power supply. When electricity supply is not stable and constant, it is difficult to keep high-tech equipment such as computers functioning, especially under extreme weather conditions as obtained in Nigeria. The high levels of dust during the dry season in Nigeria also make electronic equipment to have short live span.
108
In rural Nigeria most inhabitant do not have access to electricity, thereby denying rural secondary schools opportunity to benefit from the use of electronic equipment such as radio, television, video recorders and computers. The few Internet access available in Nigeria is found in urban centers. These environmental realities are difficult to manage because fans, sealed rooms and stable electricity are lacking in many urban homes and rural areas. Another obstacle to ICT development in Nigeria is inadequate telecommunication facilities. Though the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has rated Nigerians Telecommunication Sector as the fastest growing in Africa, majority of Nigerians have no access to telephone. At the end of 1999, total private investment in telecommunication industry in the country was $50m and there were over 700, 000 lines with 450,000 connected. The government officials and officers acquired more than half the lines connected. On the Global System of Mobile Communication (GSM), Nigeria is also ahead of most African countries with more than 2 million subscribers connected. The telecommunication sector in Nigeria has attracted more direct foreign investment hence the growth rate is faster than any other sector of the economy. Between 2001 and 2003, about $3.8 billion new investment by foreign private investors have been recorded. As at the moment, more than 3 million landlines have been added to the existing telephone capacity. Though Nigerians telecommunication sector is growing faster than in most African countries, the over 3 million landlines and 2 million GSM subscribers are a far cry from the ideal when such figures are meant to serve Nigerias nearly 124 million population. Again, most of the subscribers to the Global System of Mobile Communication (GSM) and landlines owners are found mostly in urban centers. It is also on record that the connection fees for telecom facilities have reduced drastically over the years, the current rate is still too high for many Nigerians. In 1997, connection fees for telephone lines were about $1,500; today it is about $148. The current rate is too high in a country where the minimum monthly wage is about $51. To change this situation, Nigerian needs to figure out new ways of building necessary infrastructure to support ICT in the country.
Lack of skills Nigeria does not only lack information infrastructure, it also lacked the human skills and knowledge to fully integrate ICT into secondary education. To use information and communication technology (ICT) in secondary schools in Nigeria, the need for locally trained workers to install, maintain and support these systems cannot be over emphasized. There is acute shortage of trained personnel in application software, operating systems, network administration and local technicians to service and repair computer facilities. Those who are designated to use computers in Nigeria do not receive adequate training, at worst, do not receive any training at all (Okebukola, 1997). In Nigeria also, most secondary school teachers lack the skills to fully utilize technology in curriculum implementation hence the traditional chalk and duster approach still dominates in secondary school pedagogy. Information transfer using ICT is minimal or non-existence in secondary schools in Nigeria (Anao, 2003). Secondary school teachers in Nigeria need to be trained on educational technologies and the integration of computers into classroom teaching. According to Carlson and firpo (2001), teachers need effective tools, techniques, and assistance that can help them develop computer based projects and activities especially designed to raise the level of teaching in required subjects and improve student learning (P.109)
Lack of relevant software There is no doubt that the ultimate power of technology is the content and the communication. Though, software developers and publishers in the developed countries have been trying for long to develop software and multimedia that have universal application, due to the differences in education standards and requirements, these products do not integrate into curriculum across countries. Software that is appropriate and culturally suitable to the Nigerian education system is in short supply. There is a great discrepancy between relevant software supply and demand in developing countries like Nigeria. According to Salomon (1989), there are clear indications from many countries that the supply of relevant and appropriate software is a major bottleneck obstructing wider application of the computer. Even if Nigeria tries to approach this software famine by producing software that would suit its educational philosophies, there are two major problems to be encountered. First, the cost of producing relevant software for the countrys educational system is enormous. Second, there is dearth of
109
qualified computer software designers in the country. To overcome this, people need to be trained in instructional design.
Limited access to the Internet In Nigeria there are few Internet providers that provide Internet gateway services to Nigerians. Such Internet providers are made up of Nigerians who are in partnership with foreign information and communication companies. Many of these companies provide poor services to customers who are often exploited and defrauded. The few reputable companies, which render reliable services, charged high fees thus limiting access to the use of the Internet. The greatest technological challenge in Nigeria is how to establish reliable cost effective Internet connectivity. In a country where only about 0.6% of the populace has home personal computers, the few reliable Internet providers who have invested huge sum of money in the business have a very small clientele. They have to charge high fees in order to recoup their investment in reasonable time. Nigeria has about 500,000 Internets subscribers. Secondary schools in Nigeria are not given adequate funds to provide furniture, requisite books, laboratories and adequate classrooms let alone being given adequate funds for high-tech equipment (computers) and Internet connectivity. Again, due to the lack of adequate electricity supply, especially in rural areas in Nigeria, secondary schools located in those areas have no access to the Internet and are perpetually isolated and estranged from the worlds information superhighway. Nigeria in lagging behind other African countries such as Uganda, Senegal and South Africa who are already helping secondary school students in those countries to become better information users. All Internet service providers in Nigeria are based in the urban areas. For many years, the Nigerian government had a monopolistic control of telecom service, which does not allow for the competitive environments that reduce telephony rates. Paltridge (1996) asserted that the penetration of Internet hosts is five times greater than in monopoly markets and that Internet access in countries with telecommunication competition enjoyed a growth rate five times higher than the monopoly environments. All that may change for Nigeria now as the government had invited private participation in the telecom industry and many investors are already in the Nigeria markets but it will take many years to know their full impact on Nigeria education system.
Prospects There are numerous and good prospects for the use of ICT in teaching and learning in secondary schools in Nigeria. The following major areas suggest the range of applications that computer can serve teachers and learners in Nigeria. First, computer can enhance educational efficiency. The efficiency in teaching various subjects could be improved. For instance, many secondary school teachers are already teaching large classes of students. In this situation, students no longer receive the much desired individual assistance. Furthermore, English language is taught and learned as a second language in Nigeria and many teachers of English are weak. It is possible to use carefully prepared computer programs to ensure that learners are accurately and systematically instructed. Also, the computer can enhance problem-solving skills of the learners by focussing on thinking skills especially in subject such as mathematics. Second, computers can serve administrative functions. They can replace the laborious exercise of filing papers in filing cabinets and shelves where records accumulate dust over a long period of time. Another administrative application of the computers is their use for budget planning, accounting for expenditure, writing correspondences and reports, assigning students to classes, reporting students progress and testing students and scoring tests which help to reduce paper work. It is true that many of the tasks above are not effectively and efficiently done in secondary schools in Nigeria. Third, computers can be used for individualized learning in secondary schools in Nigeria. Due to large classes and differences in individual learning style and pace, microcomputers will enable the student to progress at his or her own pace and receive continual evaluation feedback and corrections for errors made. In this way, computers allow the development of partner-like interactive and individualized relations with the user. Computers play the role of the tutor and present the leaner with a variety of contents and symbolic modes.
110
Fourth, computers can change current pedagogical practices in secondary schools in Nigeria, which depended heavily on the traditional lecture method. It is universally accepted that computers allow more independent exploration, more personally tailored activities, more teamwork, and more significantly, less didactic instruction. The role of the teacher, therefore, changes from information dispenser to that of information manager, from authoritative source of information to a guide of self-propelled exploration (Smith, 1989). Fifth, computers will offer the Nigeria teacher improvement in the techniques of research. The cumbersome exercise of searching by hand through the librarys card catalog or periodical indexes can be made easier by typing few key worlds pertinent to the research topic into a computer and the researcher can receive extensive list of related sources of articles in books and journals in just a matter of minutes.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that teachers and students in secondary schools in Nigeria will have incredible resources available if they have access to the Internet. By integrating information and communication technology into secondary school curriculum, a fundamental shift in the way teacher teaches and students learn will be evolved. However, to integrate computer into teaching and learning in Nigeria, there must be proper and adequate funding and financing of education. There has been a steady decline in governments budgetary allocation to education over the past five years, getting to all time low of less than 1% in the 2003 federal government budget. The greatest challenge to the state and federal government is to ensure that budget cuts resulting from dwindling revenue and the need to satisfy other sectors of the economy do not adversely effect education. Nigeria needs to invest heavily in the Internet business and create enabling environment for secondary school students to participate in downloading available and useful knowledge in the Internet. Secondary school students in Nigeria are already farther behind their peers in developed countries, thus widening the global digital divide. Nigeria should join the World Links of Development (WorLd), a program initiated by the World Bank in 1997. The program has been establishing computer laboratories and bringing Internet connectivity to secondary schools in developing countries around the world. It is also training teachers in these countries to acquire skills necessary to integrate information and communication technology into their classroom practices. The WorLd program links secondary schools around the world in order to improve education, enhance cultural understanding, and develop requisite skills in youth which will prepare them for the job markets in the 21st century. African countries such as Uganda, Senegal and Zimbabwe are already benefiting from the WorLd program and it has improved the accessibility and quality of basic education in those countries.
References
Anao, A. R. (2003). Society, knowledge incubation and management - Lagos. The Guardian Newspapers, November 11, 75. Becker, H. (1986). Computers in the schools. A Recent update. Classroom Computer Learning, January, 96-102. Bergheim, K., & Chin, K. (1984). Computers in the classroom. InfoWorld, September 10, 28-37. Burnett, G. (1994). Technology as a tool for urban classrooms. ERIC/CUE Digest, 95, New York: Eric Clearing house on Urban Education, retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://www.ericdigests.org/1994/tool.htm. Carlson, S., & Firpo, J. (2001). Integrating computers into teaching: Findings from a 3-year program in 20 developing countries. In L. R Vandervert, L. V. Shavinina & R. A. Cornell (Eds.), Cyber education: The future of Distance Learning. Larchmont, NY: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc, 85-114. Dabalen, A., & Oni, N. (2000). Labour market prospects for university graduates in Nigeria. World Bank Report on Nigeria University system innovation project. Elluh, J. (1989). What I believe, Grand Rapids, MI: Erdmann. Fitzgerald, G., & Werner, J. (1996). The use of the computer to support cognitive behavioral interventions for students with behavioral disorders. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7, 127-48.
111
Harper, D. O. (1987). The creation and development of Educational computer technology. In R. M. Thomas & V. N. Kobayashi (Eds.), Educational technology: its creation, development and cross-cultural transfer, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 35-63. Hess, F. M., & Leal, D. L. (2001). A shrinking digital divide? The provision of classroom computers across urban school systems. Social Science Quarterly, 18 (4), 765-778. Okebukola, P. (1997). Old, new and current technology in education. UNESCO Africa, 14 (15), 7-18. Paltridge, S. (1996). How competition helps the Internet. OECD Observer, 201, August/September, 26. Poole, G. A. (1996). A new gulf in American education, the digital divide. New York Times, January 29. Rosen, L., & Michelle, W. (1995). Computer availability, computer experience and technophobia among public school teachers. Computer in Human Behaviour, 11, 9-31. Salomon, G. (1989). Computers in Curriculum. In M. Eraut (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 167-170. Shavinina, L. V. (1997). Educational multimedia of tomorrow: High intellectual and creative psycho educational technologies. Presented at the European congress of Psychology, April 17-19, 1997, Dublin, Ireland. Shavinina, L. V. (2001). A new generation of educational multimedia: High intellectual and creative educational multimedia technologies. In L. R Vandervert, L. V. Shavinina & R. A. Cornell (Eds.), Cyber education: The future of Distance Learning. Larchmont, NY: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc, 63-82. Smith, D. (1989). Microcomputers in schools. In M. Eraut (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 170-175. Thierer, A. (2000). Divided over the digital divide, Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation. Thomas, R. M. (1987). Computer technology: An example of decision-making in technology transfer. In R. M. Thomas & V. N. Kobayashi (Eds.), Educational technology: its creation, development and cross-cultural transfer, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 25-34. Visscher, A., Wild, P., Smith, D., & Newton, L. (2003). Evaluation of the implementation, use and effects of computerized management information system in English secondary schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34 (3), 357-366. Walton, R. E. (1985). Towards a strategy of eliciting employee commitment based on policies of mutuality. In R. E. Walton & P. R. Lawrence (Eds.), HRM, trends and challenges, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 34-76. Westera, W., & Sloep, P. (2001). The future of education in cyberspace. In L. R Vandervert, L. V. Shavinina & R. A. Cornell (Eds.), Cyber education: The future of Distance Learning. Larchmont, NY: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc, 115-136.
112
Heo, M., & Chow, A. (2005). The Impact of Computer Augmented Online Learning and Assessment Tool. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 113-125.
The Impact of Computer Augmented Online Learning and Assessment Tool

Misook Heo and Anthony Chow
School of Information Studies Florida State University, 242-C Louis Shores Building Tallahassee, FL 32306-2100, USA mheo@fsu.edu chow@lis.fsu.edu Tel: +1 850 644-5490 Fax: +1 850 644-6253
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to investigate the impact of an experimental online learning tool on student performance. By applying cognitive load theory to online learning, the experimental tool used was designed to minimize cognitive load during the instructional and learning process. This tool enabled students to work with programming code that was supplemented with instructor descriptions and feedback, embedded directly within the code while maintaining the original integrity of the coding environment. A sample of 24 online graduate students at a southeastern university were randomly assigned to four groups: Group 1 (Control group), Group 2 (Assessment group: the tool was used to provide feedback on student work), Group 3 (Lecture group: the tool was used to describe examples of code provided in lectures), and Group 4 (Total tool group: the tool was used to provide feedback on student work as well as describe examples of code in lectures). Student learning was measured via analysis of six online quizzes. While provision of toolfacilitated feedback alone did not appear to enhance student learning, the results indicate that students performed best when they had the opportunity to view examples of code facilitated by the tool during the learning process of new material. This implies a carefully designed online learning environment, especially while controlling for and minimizing cognitive load when presenting new information, can enhance that student learning.
Keywords
Online learning, Information technology education, Assessment, Personalized learning, Cognitive load theory
Introduction
According to the human cognitive architecture, only the information that is attenuated to and processed through adequate rehearsal in the working memory is transferred to the long-term memory, becoming a part of a persons permanent memory (Anderson, 2000). Long-term memory can be used to store schemas of varying degrees of automaticity. The capacity of long-term memory is virtually unlimited, but humans are not directly conscious of long-term memory. Humans are conscious of only the contents of their working memory. Unfortunately, the capacity of working memory is limited to about seven elements at a time (Miller, 1956). Cognitive Load Theory suggests that instructional design will be improved if better consideration is given to the role and limitations of the working memory (Cooper, 1990). According to Sweller, one of the primary objectives of instruction is to reduce the mental workload of the learner (cognitive load) in working memory. When information is properly processed in working memory, it is encoded into long-term memory. Knowledge is stored in the form of organized schemata in the long-term memory; this process can free the working memory capacity, as these schemas allow for meaningful encoding and efficient knowledge retrieval for learners allowing processes to occur that otherwise would overburden working memory (Sweller, van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998). Cognitive load theory postulates that two types of cognitive load affect learners simultaneously: intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load. Intrinsic cognitive load is based on the level of difficulty the learner associates with the information that is presented, and this load cannot be reduced externally through either the instructional design of the material or the instructor. Extraneous cognitive load, on the other hand, is information that is not essential to instruction, which serves to distract learners from the primary information to be learned. When the intrinsic cognitive load is low, the working memory has enough space to handle a large extraneous cognitive load. In this case, the instructional design does not have much of an impact on student learning. When the intrinsic cognitive load is high, on the other hand, not much room remains available in the working memory for extraneous cognitive load. As such, poorly organized information will cause a substantial increase in extraneous cognitive load, using most, if not all, available working memory. In this case, learning does not occur efficiently,
113
if it occurs at all. Extraneous cognitive load therefore is of primary concern for instructors and instructional designers, with the goal being to minimize these distractions as much as possible. Utilizing worked examples is a primary way to reduce extraneous cognitive load and facilitate student learning, and this is referred to as the worked example effect. Worked examples let learners attend to problem states and associated operators, enabling learners to induce generalized solutions or schemas. In the absence of a schema with worked examples, means-ends analysis is an efficient way of attaining a problem goal. When learners utilize the means-ends analysis, they focus their search on actions that reduce the difference between the current state and the state that is their goal. In this case, the learner attends to the information, negotiating the differences between the current state and the desired state in their working memory until the goal is reached. Learners extraneous cognitive loads, thus, become high. In contrast, when appropriate worked examples are utilized, learners have nothing else to attend to and their extraneous cognitive loads become low. There can be, however, no guarantee that all worked examples reduce cognitive load in comparison to a means-ends search. For example, worked examples presented to the student in a non-integrated fashion scatters student attention. This split attention can cause increased cognitive load, impairing the ability of students to learn, such as using code to explain a concept but placing the description and explanation of that code at the end of the sequence instead of in an integrated fashion directly paralleling the code and the discussion of that code. This forces the learner to go back and forth from explanation to original code, placing an extraneous demand on working memory (Cooper, 1990). Therefore, providing worked examples in an integrated format is critical in order to best facilitate learning. The use of worked examples is a critical component to the learning process in programming courses, as these types of courses often are designed with tightly paired conceptual and pragmatic knowledge. Students gain exposure to fundamental programming techniques and underlying concepts through practice with code examples that they are able to later transform into practical solutions through assignments and small projects (Clear, Haataja, Meyer, Suhonen, & Varden, 2000; Emory & Tamassia, 2002; Malmi, Korhonen, & Saikkonen, 2002). Instructors, thus, often utilize textbooks and lectures that provide ample code examples that are in the performance context in an effort to facilitate student learning. In this environment, students often play the role of a self-directed learner while instructors serve as facilitators of personalized learning rather than as broadcasters of knowledge (Clear et al., 2000; Malmi et al., 2002). To better support personalized learning, instructors are also asked to provide personal attention to students and to provide an environment where students can learn in ways that work most effectively for them (VanDeGrift & Anderson, 2002). One of the primary means for achieving this goal is for instructors to provide accurate and meaningful assessment (Preston & Shackelford, 1999). It is often reported, however, that the task of grading student programs is a laborious process (Jackson & Usher, 1997). When direct contact with students is limited, assessing student work becomes even more difficult (Gayo, Gil, & lvarez, 2003). While educators agree that instructors in an online learning environment must spend more time and effort reviewing student work than they would spend in a face-to-face classroom course (Clear et al., 2000; O'Quinn & Corry, 2002; Preston & Shackelford, 1999), the instructor does not always have the luxury of devoting this amount of time. In fact, many instructors contend that the inability to complement their virtual classroom environment with traditional methods dampens their sense of effectiveness (Gayo et al., 2003; O'Quinn & Corry, 2002). For online learning environments, thus, lectures and code examples tend to be functionally and visually static and remain organized around the delivery media rather than the knowledge representation and learning tasks of the student (Altman, Chen, & Low, 2002; Reed & John, 2003; Zachary & Jensen, 2003). For example, a code example is often followed by additional explanations and descriptions, causing split-attention effect for learners and creating a situation where every student receives the same amount of description for a specific code. Likewise, coding assignments are usually graded with limited feedback in problem solving and programming techniques (Trivedi, Kar, & Patterson-McNeill, 2003). General interaction among the instructor and students is often less frequent than it would be in a face-to-face classroom environment, especially when the course is in programming where the primary mode of communication is text-based (Malmi et al., 2002; Price & Petre, 1997). The need to reduce cognitive load in online learning environments that are predominately static and text-based represents a significant problem, especially in programming courses. A tool that simultaneously reduces student
114
split-attention but does not cost instructors any additional time and effort in teaching online programming courses is needed. By addressing the problem of split-attention, overall student extraneous cognitive load should be reduced, leading to more available working memory for learning newly introduced information, and potentially increasing overall learning effectiveness. In addition, such a tool could also potentially reduce the overall work load of an online programming instructor through augmenting the process of providing meaningful descriptions and personalized comments to code examples and student work.
Purpose of the Study

The research presented in this paper seeks to investigate the impact of an experimental online learning tool on student performance. An experimental tool, the Online Learning and Assessment Tool (OLAT), was implemented to apply the cognitive load theory to online learning, attempting to minimize cognitive load during the instructional and learning process. This study is intended to address the primary research question, Does the use of the OLAT improve student learning? We have developed three hypotheses addressing the research question tested in this paper: 1. Students receiving tool-facilitated feedback on their work will gain enhanced understanding from their mistakes, thus their test performance over time will improve beyond that of control group students. 2. Students receiving tool-facilitated descriptions in code examples will develop a better understanding of the examples, thus their test performance over time will improve beyond that of control group students. 3. Students receiving both tool-facilitated descriptions and feedback will show the greatest improvement in performance over time. The OLAT allows the student to view instructor-provided descriptions and/or feedback needed to increase knowledge about a particular section of code or about mistakes that have been made. It is expected that exposure to the tool-facilitated descriptions will improve student learning by reducing extraneous cognitive loads for students when they are first exposed to new materials. While it is expected that exposure to the tool-facilitated feedback alone will not improve student learning much since students intrinsic cognitive loads will not be high when dealing with already learned material, it is anticipated that students exposed to both the tool-facilitated descriptions and feedback will achieve the greatest improvement in performance over time.
Methodology
Participants Each of the 24 graduate students participating in the six-week study attended a southeastern university; a possible selection bias is present in the study as each of the participants was self-registered to the online session of the Advanced Web Applications course. Participants were not monetarily awarded but were rewarded with academic credit for participation in this experimental study. Each participants age, gender, and academic program were recorded, but kept confidential in accordance with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines.
Instruments and Materials Experimental Intervention: The Online Learning And Assessment Tool (OLAT) as Learning Tool The OLAT serves as a learning aid by allowing the instructor to tailor descriptions to a specific portion of the code example. The process occurs easily, utilizing simple point and describe actions. The instructor simply loads the saved code example to a web browser and clicks on the line requiring detailed description. This mouse click action can be likened to the process of a face-to-face classroom instructor pointing to a portion of code to provide an explanation. A description-ready window appears in which the instructor is able to compose the desired description. Figure 1 provides a screenshot of this stage. The instructors code description is now ready to be viewed by students.
115
Figure 1. Interface for the instructor: description prompt
The process of reducing cognitive load for the instructor by providing such an efficient means for adding description to meaningful worked examples can be referred to as augmentation, which reduces the load of working memory by removing trivial human tasks, thereby freeing the working memory and enhancing the available capacity to be used for instructional purposes as efficiently as possible. Once an instructor description has been embedded, students are free to review the code example with or without the embedded descriptions. Students may choose to review the embedded code descriptions by moving the mouse over the color-coded lines (e.g. red-colored lines implicitly indicate that there are embedded descriptions). This process can be likened to the student raising a hand in the face-to-face classroom for further explanation of a specific section of code. Figure 2 provides a screenshot of this stage.
Figure 2. Interface for the student: revealed description

116
Theoretically, by providing instructor descriptions embedded directly within the worked examples, the OLAT can help protect against the split-attention effect that causes extraneous cognitive load in working memory, and thus support efficient student learning. Further, the OLATs ability to view code descriptions on demand cultivates a positive environment of self-directed, personalized learning among a diverse student population (Brusilovsky, 2001). Providing mouse-over activated descriptions within text to preserve the original integrity of the performance environment is not completely new technology. Popular applications such as MS Word provide easy access to such functionality. One of the primary benefits of Web-based education, however, is classroom and platform independence (Atolagbe, Hlupic, & Taylor, 2001; Brusilovsky, 1998). With the advent of platform-independent applications, there are far greater possibilities for creating more useful educational tools (Bridgeman, Goodrich, Kobourov, & Tamassia, 2000). Eliminating the need to rely on students owning specific proprietary software can be seen as taking full advantage of the benefits offered through online learning. Color-coding for the code lines with embedded description and feedback utilizes the inherent advantages of preattentiveness theory. This theory holds that processing occurs automatically for people as they pay visual attention to and process graphical features such as color and size in a pre-attentive fashion. In other words, people see and process size and color differences prior to cognitive processing. Pre-attentive information representation is mentally economical, since the information is rapidly and efficiently processed by the preattentive visual system rather than through cognitive effort (Bartram, 1997).
Experimental Intervention: The Online Learning And Assessment Tool (OLAT) as Assessment Tool In face-to-face classroom courses, students may submit their assignment printouts to the instructor. The instructor is then able to read through the submitted code, marking errors or inserting corrections, comments, or advice in the appropriate portion of the code. Often, the instructor will choose to emphasize feedback with colored ink (Herrmann et al., 2003). Upon receiving the graded assignment, the student is able to directly view the location where feedback is written; it would not be necessary to count line numbers or read the code line by line to interpret the instructors feedback. Currently, in most online education environments, student assignments are uploaded to the course server or delivered to the instructor by email. The instructor then reviews the submitted assignment and adds feedback at the end of the assignment file or in a separate email message, which is returned to the student. This practice creates added difficulty since, in addition to evaluating and providing feedback on the code, the instructor must now consider the line number and location of the applicable comment, or must use proprietary software to insert comments within the document itself. This process also presents added difficulty for students, as they must orient themselves to the specific location of comment by counting line numbers and apply consolidated feedback to appropriate sections of the code, or they must possess the necessary proprietary software. The assessment portion of the OLAT facilitates the process of providing feedback on student code by allowing the instructor to tailor comments to individual student code. The instructor simply accesses the submitted assignment code through a web browser and clicks on the lines that require feedback. This mouse click action can be likened to providing feedback at a specific location within a printed version of the code. On this click action, a comment-ready window appears and the instructor simply types in the appropriate feedback. The process for making and retrieving comments are the same as for providing and retrieving instructor descriptions to worked examples as part of a lecture depicted earlier in Figures 1 and 2. Although the OLATs learning and assessment tool features serve different purposes, they function in the same manner. The OLAT, as a platform independent online application for providing instructor feedback, facilitates the assessment process and also relieves the instructor and/or students from the burden of needing to have proprietary softwareinserted descriptions occur and are saved directly to the server (the application is Perl/CGI/JavaScript based) through any browser they may use. This augments the process by allowing instructors to skip the time intensive process of downloading a student document, making comments and saving that document to their local desktop, and then having to upload it back to the server and/or emailing it back to the student. The entire transaction occurs online. The OLAT was embedded into the existing online course infrastructure. Since the tool produces pages with embedded description and feedback that are visible in any Web browser, neither the instructor nor students were asked to install any special software to make use of the tool.
117
Course Management System An in-house course management system was used to conduct the study. This system has similar functionality to commercial products such as BlackBoard or WebCT possessing 1) asynchronous components such as posted lectures, threaded-discussion boards, email, announcements, assignment/drop box, and other course materials (syllabus, course calendar, etc.), and 2) synchronous components that consist of text-based chat interactions.
Assessment Measures There were two types of assessment measures used in the study: quizzes and coding assignments.
Quizzes Six in-class quizzes were conducted. Quizzes consisted of online multiple-choice and short answer questions intended to address the two main categories of assessment, objective questions and performance based questions (McCracken et al., 2001). Students were asked to respond to quiz questions on a weekly basis after reviewing code examples and instructor feedback. Quizzes were based on relevant course material and were offered not only to evaluate the impact of tool-facilitated material, but also to reinforce student learning and application of course content. Six questions were asked in each quiz. On each quiz, three questions addressed the previous weeks assignment and three questions addressed the current weeks examples of code. For each quiz, the majority of questions were standard close-ended multiple choice (objective based questions); each quiz, however, also included a few open-ended, short answer questions (performance based questions). The quizzes were standard HTML, formbased, and conducted online using the course management systems assessment features. Figure 3 shows an example of the quiz questions.
Figure 3. Example Quiz Question
Assignments Each week after learning new syntax and being exposed to worked examples, students were asked to complete a coding assignment. Student code was submitted through the course Website by uploading a zipped ASCII text file.
118
Questionnaires Two questionnaires were administered during the study. The pre-test was a 15-item questionnaire, which collected participant demographic data including age and gender, and previous experience with computers, the Web, programming languages, and online learning. Example pretest questions include: How many computer language courses did you take so far? and How many courses per semester (on average) do you take Webbased distance courses? The post-test questionnaire was also a 15-item instrument and collected participants perspectives on their experience with tool-facilitated descriptions and feedback. The questions were a combination of ordinal scale and seven-point Likert scale. Examples of post-test items include: Indicate the amount of time you spent studying the lecture slide/audio per week and How helpful the descriptions in the code examples for your understanding of concepts of each week's learning material? Choose one between 1 (Not at all) and 7 (Very much).
Procedure In order to test our hypotheses, a six-week experimental study was conducted in a Web programming course taught online during a summer session. The study involved 24 graduate students from a southeastern university, all of whom were enrolled in the online course Advanced Web Applications. Participants were randomly assigned to four experimental groups. Students in each group reviewed lecture material and completed a series of quizzes and programming assignments. The experiment ran from May 2003 through June 2003. The experimental study consisted of four groups: 1) Control group: the OLAT tool was not used and participants viewed line-number based descriptions and feedback in the traditional manner, as shown in Figure 4; 2) Assessment group: the OLAT tool was only used to provide feedback on student work; 3) Lecture group: the OLAT tool was only used to provide descriptions of examples of code in lectures; and 4) Total tool group: the OLAT tool was used to provide feedback on student work as well as descriptions of examples of code in lectures. Each participant was assigned randomly to one of the four groups.
Figure 4. Interface for the student: line numbered description
An initial online pre-test questionnaire was administered to participants to collect demographic and experience data as described above. Each week of the study period, lectures were offered and coding assignments were presented. Each lecture provided one or more examples of code and the instructor reviewed each student
119
assignment within 12 hours of the assignment deadline. Student learning was also supported by various online education methods, including weekly audio lectures with slides, weekly synchronous chat sessions, an asynchronous faculty office discussion forum, and an asynchronous student discussion forum. During each week of the study participants took an online quiz during the regularly scheduled class time (two hours each week), which included questions from the current weeks examples of code as well as the previous weeks assignment. No time limit was enforced for any of the quizzes but participants were advised to finish the quiz in 15 minutes. User logs such as access time to the quiz page, IP address, and student ID, were reviewed for student identification. After concluding the pre-test and all six quizzes, participants were asked to provide their perspectives on the examples of code and feedback on their work in a post-test questionnaire. Immediate access to quiz performance was not available due to the fact that there were a few open-ended, short answer questions, which needed to be graded by the instructor. Multiple-choice questions had one correct answer per question. The short answer questions were performance based requiring participants to identify problems and/or provide necessary solutions to coding examples.
Measures Dependent variables The number of correct answers and the amount of time taken to complete weekly quizzes served as the studys dependent variables of performance; if tool-facilitated descriptions and/or feedback aided student learning, student performance on quizzes would improve over time. Time taken to complete quizzes was analyzed to measure the possible trade-off between the number of correct answers and time on task. Follow-up perceptive evaluation results were also collected and analyzed to enrich the data.
Analysis Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) one-way factorial design was used to measure the participants performance progress, and the main effects of the OLAT on student learning were analyzed. When the resulting F values were significant, a post-hoc analysis was conducted to investigate the differences among the groups. As a post-hoc test, Tukeys Honestly Significantly Different test was used. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to analyze linear relationships between the number of correct answers and the time taken to complete quizzes. ANOVA one-way factorial design was also used to analyze the results of the perceptive evaluation questionnaire.
Results
Homogeneity Among Groups Since no screening process was used to recruit participants, variance among the four experimental groups was analyzed using the Kruskal and Wallis Test to test for potential differences in homogeneity. No significant difference in the amount of experience among the groups on computers, the Web, programming languages, and online learning was found (all asymptotic significance values were greater than the significant level of 0.05). Analysis of student performance on quizzes completed during the first three-weeks also showed inter-group homogeneity. Student performance on these quizzes could reflect pre-existing knowledge of course subjects, since participants were newly introduced to the course and had not yet become accustomed to the way to view tool-facilitated descriptions and feedback.
Main Test Results The progress in performance (the change in the number of correct answers from the first three weeks to the last three weeks) for each of the four experimental groups is shown in Table 1. A one-way ANOVA indicated that student performance in the tool-facilitated lecture group significantly increased across questions asking about lecture material (F(3, 20) = 4.34, p = .016). Analysis also showed that this group had a corresponding positive
120
trend on student learning in overall quiz questions (F(3, 20) = 2.77, p = .069). The total group also showed an increase in student performance across overall quiz questions. To determine where the difference occurred, a Tukey post-hoc test was conducted. According to the test, the significant difference in increased performance occurred between the lecture group and the assessment group (p = .014). Each group spent about the same amount of time completing quizzes (F(3, 20) = 1.65, n.s.), however the lecture group showed more progress than the participants in other groups. Pearsons correlation showed no significant trade-off between the number of correct answers and time taken to complete quizzes.
Group Control
Table 1. Statistical results of the main-test Improvement in number of correct answers Question Meana Std. deviation
Quiz time Meanb Std. (seconds) deviation 1007 1083 1274 921 1071 252.40 292.51 327.04 270.97 298.95
Lecture -.50 1.64 -2.00 Assignment -1.50 2.17 Assessment Lecture -1.67 1.51 -3.17 Assignment -1.50 3.02 Lecture Lecture 1.67 1.51 1.33 Assignment -.33 1.97 Total tool Lecture .67 2.07 2.00 Assignment 1.33 3.50 Total Lecture .04 2.03 -.46 Assignment -.50 2.81 Note. aNumber of questions asked at quiz #4 through #6 = 18. (Lecture related questions = 9 and assignment related questions = 9) b Mean quiz time reflects a summed amount.
6 6 6 6 24
Role of Experience in Online Education While programming knowledge in general and programming course experience in a face-to-face classroom environment showed positive correlations toward student performance, .396 (n = 24, p = .056) and .404 (n = 24, p = .051), previous online education experience showed a significant negative correlation. For the question, How many courses per semester (on average) do you take online? there was a significant negative correlation of -.726 (n = 24, p = .000) with student performance. In addition, for the question, How long have you been taking online courses? there also was a significantly negative correlation of -.593 (n = 24, p = .002) with student performance.
Perceptive Evaluations In the last week of the study, participants were asked to rate their experience with the examples of code and feedback on their work via a set of survey questions. This post-survey was used to obtain participants perspectives on Web pages with embedded description and feedback facilitated by the tool. The survey consisted of 15, seven-point Likert scale questions. A one-way ANOVA indicated that participants in the total tool group spent significantly less preparation time than the participants of the control group in studying examples of code (F(3, 20) = 6.305, p = .003).
Discussion
The purpose of the study was to determine whether the OLAT intervention would improve student learning in an online educational environment. Participants in this study were asked to answer quiz questions after reviewing examples of code and feedback on their work provided with or without the use of the Online Learning and Assessment Tool. Clear performance differences emerged among the four groups. Analyses of experiment data show that descriptions of code examples facilitated by the tool were the most helpful for participants learning. In contrast, tool-facilitated feedback appeared to be the least helpful for participants learning.
121
We believe that these findings suggest that the OLAT intervention facilitated a decrease in the overall extraneous cognitive load associated with students learning new material. When intrinsic cognitive load is high, such as when faced with processing new material, the available working memory is already severely limited, leaving little room for additional requirements made by extraneous cognitive load (e.g. an online instructional and learning environment). In our study, the intrinsic cognitive load for students was assumed to be relatively high as they were faced with learning new material presented. Given this premise, additional extraneous cognitive load associated with the instructional delivery and environment could potentially increase the overall cognitive load leading to cognitive overload (intrinsic plus extrinsic cognitive load exceeds available working memory), thereby impeding student learning. Based on the fact that the OLAT lecture group and the OLAT total group (OLAT was used in both lecture and assessment) showed improved performance at higher levels than other groups, we infer that the OLAT intervention led to increased student learning by reducing overall extraneous cognitive load. For the OLAT assessment group, however, which performed significantly lower than the OLAT lecture and total groups, we believe that although extraneous cognitive load may have been reduced by using OLAT during the assessment process, the impact on overall student learning was minimal due to the fact that the tool was not available during the initial learning process. In addition to the primary findings, we have also determined that while participants with programming language experience showed improved performance on objective testing over time, participants with online education experience showed an overall decrease in test performance over time. While this trend was somewhat surprising, we surmise that students who have more experience with online courses may have established expectations of minimal interaction and personal engagement when reading lectures and assessing assignments. Experienced online students are more likely to typically face a lack of personalized learning and assessment feedback from the instructor. Such learning strategies are problematic in an online programming course because of the iterative, trial-and-error nature of knowledge and skill acquisition involved in becoming proficient in a programming language. Simply put, we believe that more experienced online students, with already preconceived learning and feedback paradigms, took advantage of the experimental tool less frequently and effectively than their less experienced peers. Based on the findings in our perceptive evaluation, the participants in the total tool group devoted significantly less time on preparation than did the members of the control group in studying examples of code. This difference suggests that participants could obtain the same amount of knowledge, if not more, in less time when the toolfacilitated lectures were provided in both lectures and in assignment feedback.
Implications The findings of this study support cognitive load theory as applied to instructional design (Sweller et al., 1998). If instruction is delivered in such a way as to effectively reduce extraneous cognitive load, then the necessary working memory will be available for processing and retention of new information. Students who were exposed to the OLAT during the initial presentation of new information in the lecture significantly improved their learning performance over time. Our study also supports the idea that the worked-example effect is only beneficial if the example actually decreases extraneous cognitive load (Cooper, 1990; Feinberg & Murphy, 2000). When the split-attention effect occurs, the worked-example effect may actually increase cognitive load and impede student learning. Using the OLATs embedded description/comments arguably helps preserve the integrity of the instructional contextall the information being presented is in the same location, thus protecting students from the split-attention effect. Overall, the findings of this study indicate that student learning can be improved in an online programming environment when unique challenges, such as non-linear characteristics of code paired with associated comments, are carefully considered and mitigated.
Limitations Although this study provides data supporting cognitive load theory, there are still a number of limitations that should be considered. Although it was strongly recommended that students read all lectures and instructor feedback on their work, it cannot be determined if all students actually read the lectures and feedback comments. Also, we were unable to control for variance in the breadth and time students devoted to this area.
122
Students were required to participate in a weekly synchronous text-based chat sessions that were supplemented by voluntary asynchronous threaded discussion forums. We acknowledge that discussion and interaction play an important role in online learning and may have a significant impact on student learning; unfortunately, due to constraints of resources and time, we were unable to control for this variable. One point of qualification, however, is that the asynchronous threaded discussions were voluntary and ultimately not utilized to a great extent by students, therefore most likely not accounting for much of the performance variance. Our findings are only preliminary with a small sample size; extended study with additional participants may need to be conducted to increase the overall strength of our findings. In addition, as student performance was measured only through the use of quiz scores, other measures may need to be used in future studies. Lastly, the overall amount of time students spent completing quizzes and assignments was not controlled. Students began the quizzes at the same time, although when they finished varied across students. On average, each quiz took approximately 18 minutes to complete. One week was given to complete each assignment.
Conclusion
Although the study described in this paper is still in its early stages of research and development, the results are encouraging and suggest that the OLAT may be successful in reducing cognitive load during the initial instruction and learning process. We remain optimistic that this tool, with additional research, will prove to be beneficial for online programming instruction and student learning. Continued improvement of the current tool is planned and includes incorporation of a component that allows descriptions or feedback to be provided across multiple lines of code (one comment for multiple lines of code in different areas). In addition, providing the ability to run code directly within the browser is also planned in order to substantially reduce time required by the instructor to test student code and to reduce students time to test code examples. Currently, teaching an online programming course can be a daunting task. The need for easing the burden on behalf of instructors and students is essential to increase the overall effectiveness and efficiency of instruction and learning in virtual space. The OLAT represents an initial attempt to bring together contemporary learning theory and information technology to realize the core vision for online learningopen access, platform independence, self-directed, personalized learning among a diverse student population freed from the limitations of space and time (Brusilovsky, 2001).
References
Altman, E., Chen, Y., & Low, W. C. (2002). Semantic exploration of lecture videos. Paper presented at the International Multimedia Conference, December 1-6, 2002, Juan-les-Pins, France. Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (5th ed.), New York: Worth Publishers. Atolagbe, T., Hlupic, V., & Taylor, S. J. E. (2001). Teaching tools and methods: GeNisa: a web-based interactive learning environment for teaching simulation modeling. Paper presented at the 33rd Conference on Winter Simulation, December 9-12, 2001, Arlington, VA, USA. Bartram, L. (1997). Perceptual and interpretative properties of motion for information visualization. Paper presented at the Workshop on New Paradigms in Information Visualization and Manipulation, November 10-14, 1997, Las Vegas, USA. Bridgeman, S., Goodrich, M. T., Kobourov, S. G., & Tamassia, R. (2000). PILOT: An interactive tool for learning and grading. Paper presented at the 31st SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, March 7-12, 2000, Austin, TX, USA. Brusilovsky, P. (1998). Adaptive Educational Systems on the World-Wide-Web: A Review of Available Technologies. Paper presented at the Workshop "WWW-Based Tutoring" at the 4th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, August 16-19, 1998, San Antonio, TX, USA.
123
Brusilovsky, P. (2001). WebEx: Learning from examples in a programming course. Paper presented at the WebNet'01Conference, October 23-27, 2001, Orlando, FL, USA. Clear, T., Haataja, A., Meyer, J., Suhonen, J., & Varden, S. A. (2000). Dimensions of Distance Learning for Computer Education. Proceedings of the ITiCSE 2000 Working Group Reports, New York: ACM Press, 101110. Cooper, G. (1990). Cognitive load theory as an aid for instructional design. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 6 (2), 108-113. Emory, D., & Tamassia, R. (2002). Jerpa: A distance-learning environment for introductory Java programming courses. Paper presented at the 33rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, February 27-March 3, 2002, Covington, KY, USA. Feinberg, S., & Murphy, M. (2000). Applying cognitive load theory to the design of Web-based instruction. Paper presented at the IEEE Professional Communication Society International Professional Communication Conference, September 24-27, 2000, Cambridge, MA, USA. Gayo, J. E. L., Gil, J. M. M., & lvarez, A. M. F. (2003). A generic e-learning multiparadigm programming language system: IDEFIX project. Paper presented at the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, February 19-23, 2003, Reno, NV, USA. Herrmann, N., Popyack, J. L., Char, B., Zoski, P., Cera, C. D., Lass, R. L., & Nanjappa, A. (2003). Redesigning introductory computer programming using multi-level online modules for a mixed audience. Paper presented at the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, February 19-23, 2003, Reno, NV, USA. Jackson, D., & Usher, M. (1997). Grading student programs using ASSYST. Paper presented at the 28th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, February 27-March 1, 1997, San Jose, CA, USA. Malmi, L., Korhonen, A., & Saikkonen, R. (2002). Experiences in automatic assessment on mass courses and issues for designing virtual courses. Paper presented at the 7th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 24-28, 2002, Aarhus, Denmark. McCracken, M., Wilusz, T., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, D., Kolikant, Y. B., Laxer, C., Thomas, L., & Utting, I. (2001). A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. Working Group Reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, New York: ACM Press, 125-180. Miller, G. (1956). The magic number seven, plus or minus two: some limits of our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97. O'Quinn, L., & Corry, M. (2002). Factors that deter faculty from participating in distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5 (4), retrieved December 21, 2004 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter54/Quinn54.htm. Preston, J. A., & Shackelford, R. (1999). Improving on-line assessment: An investigation of existing marking methodologies. Paper presented at the 4th Annual SIGCSE/SIGCUE ITiCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, June 27-30, 1999, Cracow, Poland. Price, B., & Petre, M. (1997). Teaching programming through paperless assignments: An empirical evaluation of instructor feedback. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual SIGCSE/SIGCUE ITiCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, June 1-5, 1997, Uppsala, Sweden. Reed, D., & John, S. (2003). Web annotator. Paper presented at the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, February 19-23, 2003, Reno, NV, USA. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (3), 251-296.
124
Trivedi, A., Kar, D. C., & Patterson-McNeill, H. (2003). Automatic assignment management and peer evaluation. The Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 18 (4), 30-37. VanDeGrift, T., & Anderson, R. J. (2002). Learning to support the instructor: Classroom assessment tools as discussion frameworks in CS 1. Paper presented at the 7th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 24-28, 2002, Aarhus, Denmark. Zachary, J. L., & Jensen, P. A. (2003). Exploiting value-added content in an online course: Introducing programming concepts via HTML and JavaScript. Paper presented at the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, February 19-23, 2003, Reno, NV, USA.
125
Verhaart, M. (2005). Software review: EMTeachline Mathematics Software. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 126-131.
EMTeachline Mathematics Software

(Software review)
Reviewer:
Michael Verhaart Faculty of Business and Computing Eastern Institute of Technology Hawkes Bay New Zealand Tel: +64 6 974 8000 mverhaart@eit.ac.nz
Product details: Product Name: Product Category: Developer/Publisher: Website Product Price:
Contact:
EMTeachline Mathematics Software School/Polytechnic/University software Education/Mathematics/Software/Teaching/Learning EMTeachline Software http://www.emteachline.com Purchasing is via the online web site. eMTeachline provides a repository of over a million math problems. These are grouped into programs and there are many options available. As an example a module on arithmetic will cost 113 Euro for the tasks and 186 Euro for the tasks and solutions, and consists of over 35,000 problems. Dr Marina Chabalova contact@emteachline.com Rating out of 5 2.5 2.5 3 - (dependant on usage and application) 3 3 2
Snapshot review: Ease of use Ease of navigation Documentation Price/value ratio Pedagogical foundation Instructional values Interactivity
Brief product overview

EMTeachline's web site describes EMSoftware as comprising millions of math problems in arithmetic, algebra, pre-calculus, trigonometry and hyperbolic trigonometry. Hundreds of general and special solution methods. Fully explained step by step solutions of equations, inequalities and more. Math formulas proofs. Authoring tools to create math tests, exams and problem-solving lesson plans. Multilingual and XMLMathML support. Products include; o EMTask is a task-book comprising thousands of problems with answers. o EMSolution will provide detailed step-by-step solutions to each problem. EMMentor allows variants of tests to be created (this was not provided for review), and o EMFormula teaches formulae and their "verbal formulations" (also not provided for review). System requirements o Windows 3.1/95 or higher o 486 DX or higher (Pentium recommended) o 8 MB RAM (16 MB recommended) Installation o The evaluation copy submitted for review (Emsolutionlight.exe) was a 3MB self-extracting file archive. According to the author " The evaluation program EMSolutionLight is a fully functional analog of commercial programs and covers the whole range of topics developed by EMTeachline". o Installation is by default to C:\Program Files\EMTeachline\EMLight
126
Installing uses about 10.4MB on disk. No icon was created on the desktop, but an entry was made in the start bar programs. No run instructions were given at end of installation (which would be useful), but the folder containing the extracted files was opened. o There does not appear to be any Registry settings (which is a nice change!) o Installation was on a P4 2.4GHz running Win XP Pro (with Service Pack 2). De-installation o Although a program UnInstallEM.exe existed, running it had no effect, somehow this deleted itself later. But, as there appears to be no files external to the EMLight folder merely deleting the files in this folder seemed to delete the application from the system. o
Using the system

On starting the system a "quote" splash screen was displayed then the screen illustrated by figure 1.
Figure 1. Initial screen On selecting Arithmetic II (the first option) then Perform operations,. the expanded version was displayed (figure 2)
Figure 2. Expanded option Selecting the first option under Perform operations produced a task sheet as shown in figure 3.
127
Figure 3. Task sheet Clicking on the (=) button simply redisplays the question with its answer. Clicking on the forward button (>) redisplays the question on its own as Figure 4.
Figure 4. Task displayed on its own
128
On the toolbar the "Full Solution" first displays a warning screen that MathML needs to be installed then displays a fully worked solution (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Worked solution The forward button displays the worked solution one step at a time. The View button (fast forward) displays the full worked solution in EMSolution. (The full solution is displayed in the web browser). The (?) icon provides some term definitions as shown in figure 6. Other options shown on the tool bar also gave textual descriptions, definitions and instructions.
Figure 6. Help attached to task, giving definitions The world icon display the solution instructions in two languages. (In the Lite version English, German and Ukrainian were available (Figure 7, shows the question with a Ukrainian translation). The instructions for this method were terse and assumed prior knowledge (e.g. "Let's multiply polynomials by each other, using distributive law").
129
Figure 7. Help attached to task, giving definitions Navigation proved difficult and was not intuitive. For example, I found that when trying to go back to a previous screen the application shut down entirely. If a test was selected there appeared to be no way back to the start!!, until I discovered that [X] exit button takes you back a layer (rather than back one screen). The exception when clicking the [X] button is in the collections window where the entire application shuts down.
Main features and strong points

The main feature is that there are millions of problems and solutions available. The system as provided for evaluation used a book metaphor similar to a hyperlinked PDF file. Once the interface became familiar using the software was reasonably straight forward. The software is compiled so size was kept small. Contact the authors was straightforward and replies to any queries were received promptly.
Criticism and suggestions

The demonstration software provided consisted of a program that contained mathematical tasks with solutions. Initially the navigation was not intuitive with many alternative navigation paths. The implementation interface was like a text book that had been converted to a computer based environment. From a student perspective the software would be used as follows; select a topic (this could be teacher directed), get presented with problems, solve problem on paper, go to the computer to have worked solutions displayed. Unlike many adaptive environments the questions were the same each time, and those in the demonstration system were at a reasonably advanced level. The software provided for this review was drill/repetition based which is based on a traditional text book based pedagogy. Although the system promised that it would analyse errors I could not discover any way to enter any work into the computer for analysis. Some guidance as to the student age level would be useful. Further, a difficulty scale for each task would assist a teacher in a class of mixed ability students. The tasks in the evaluation version were at an advanced level.
130
Conclusion
The pedagogical basis of this repository is on repetition and learning by example. The software made no attempt to be a teaching tool to teach concepts. A huge bank of solved problems is provided in varying topics, but if at the same level as those supplied for review, are at a fairly advanced level. The cost of purchasing the software is not insignificant, especially if multiple modules are to be purchased. If this teaching style is one you or your institute adopts, and you are looking for a large task bank of questions with solutions, then this repository is worth looking into.
131
Kennedy, I. G. (2005). Book review: Designing Distributed Learning Environments with Intelligent Software Agents (Fuhua Oscar Lin). Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 132-133.
Designing Distributed Learning Environments with Intelligent Software Agents

(Book Review)
Reviewer:
Ian G. Kennedy Senior Research Officer School of Electrical and Information Engineering University of the Witwatersrand 1 Jan Smuts Avenue, Johannesburg South Africa i.kennedy@ee.wits.ac.za
Textbook Details:
Designing Distributed Learning Environments with Intelligent Software Agents Fuhua Oscar Lin (Ed.) 2005, Information Science Publishing (an imprint of Idea Group Inc.) ISBN 1-59140-500-9 (hardcover), 1-59140-501-7 (paperback) 311 pages.
I believe that education is an investment for the future of society. To develop our society we need to achieve the best education for every individual through providing every appropriate means for the particular individual. To provide the best education for each individual, we must perforce adapt our education to the individual. One adaption is to free the individual constraints of place and time. Many publications and books are appearing on the topic of customising distributed education for the individuals. (These individuals I prefer to call "educatees" - I hate the inadequate term "learners", which implies only children and craftspeople.) The idea is to design a learning environment that will enable the individual educatees to acquire knowledge just in time, anytime, anywhere, and tailored to their personal needs. As a reader of this publication, you are probably involved some way in the designing of a distributed environment for local or distance education, teaching, tutoring or instruction. If so, you should obtain this book. The book is a useful compilation of ten chapters, written by twenty-three scholars from around the world. Do not be put off by the word "agents" in the title. "Agents" are computer services that humans (or even other agents) can call upon to accomplish their task (p. 4). The common viewpoint that the authors adopt is that agents are required to help in the design of distributed computer systems to be used for education. The approach the authors take is complementary to the common approach of designing with learning objects. This is not a book that will get your learning environment going. However it does reveal many of the issues that you have to face in creating a new learning environment. The book reports on the most recent advances in agent technologies for distributed learning. Chapters are devoted to various aspects of intelligent software agents in distributed learning, including the methodological and technical issues on where and how intelligent agents can contribute to meeting the needs of distributed learning. This book benefits the Artificial Intelligence society and educational communities in their research and development. It offers new and interesting research issues surrounding the development of distributed learning environments. In addition, ideas presented in the book are applicable to other domains such as Agent-Supported Web Services, distributed business process and resource integration, Computer-Supported Collaborative Work and e-Commerce. (Book description from Amazon.com) For me, the main contribution in the book is provided by Mohamed Ally in his chapter VI titled "Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Distributed Learning". Ally sensibly comes to grips with the basics of designing for the differing needs and styles of educatees. Educational research has traditionally focused on studying the instruction of groups of educatees rather than individual education. So, little is known about the individual learning characteristics which are vital to help us develop the student model and pedagogical modules for intelligent tutoring systems.
132
"When students come to the learning process, they come with many individual differences, such as unique learning styles, different motivational levels, different backgrounds, different levels of expertise, and different expectations. The question is how to develop an intelligent tutoring system that identifies these individual differences and adapts the instruction to meet learners' individual needs. A well-designed intelligent tutoring system will be able to cater to learners' individual needs in a distributed environment." (p. 168) My thoughts on the topic are that if, for example, material being delivered to a cell-phone or hand-held computer would have all gratuitous graphics stripped out. Topics that the educatee has demonstrated mastery of need not (and should not) be delivered. Topics that the particular educatees do not need in their current career can be safely omitted or postponed until they are relevant. On the other hand, topics that require practice can be repeated with slightly different variations until the educatee has had enough practice. The vocabulary of the material can be switched to match that of the career path of the educatees. Questions from the educatees that are unanswerable from the contained knowledge base should be flagged for subsequent treatment outside the course and possible inclusion in later versions of the course. If the current activity level of the educatee is measured, it might serve as a proxy for sensing the educatees' sleepiness and cause the system to bring in some anecdote, humour or specific examples from the domain of the individual educatees to sustain their interest. By building in assessment into every topic, (e.g. fill-the-blanks-in assessment) feedback of problems such as commonly made errors can be provided to the educator, so that further refinement of the course can take place. The relevance of the book is that it comes at a time when researchers around the world are still struggling to come to grips with the questions that need to be solved, and a reading of the book suggests more directions for research than there will be available scholars. An index is provided to help in this regard. The researcher in this area will surely also be interested in the recent paper by Pantano Rokou, F., Rokou, E., & Rokos, Y. (2004). entitled "Modeling Web-based Educational Systems: process Design Teaching Model" in Educational Technology & Society, 7 (1), 42-50. This paper describes the introduction of stereotypes to the pedagogical design of intelligent tutoring systems and appropriate modifications of the existing package diagrams of the Unified Modeling Language. In conclusion, put the book on your reading list.
133
International Forum of Educational Technology & Society http://www.ifets.info

Construtivismo 2005

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Construtivismo 2005

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of

Educational Technology & Society

Educational Technology & Society

Subscription Prices and Ordering Information

Abstracting and Indexing

Guidelines for authors

Journal of Educational Technology & Society

Software reviews EMTeachline Mathematics Software Reviewer: Michael Verhaart 126-131

Formal online discussions: reflections on process

Pre-Discussion Paper Introduction

1. Hosting the discussion

Discussion space characteristics

Discussion space options

4. Providing guidelines/models for moderators

5. Providing guidelines for citing contributions

Post-discussion summary Discussion space options

Guidelines for moderation and citation

Study by Weal (1991)

Bennet and MacFarlane (1992) Wouters and van Donselaar (2000).

Martin Vega et al. (2002)

Alliance Motivated Academia Industry Linkage

Database End User

Figure 1. Components of SCBIZHELP

SCBIZHELP: Information System to Facilitate Academia Industry Linkage

Contact Charlie Emery

Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations

Constructivism An overview of the learning theory

Implications of the constructivist paradigm for the design process

Towards pragmatic constructivism

The need to innovate

The innovation drive

Innovation and culture

Technologys mediating role

The role of devices

Figure 1. The mediating role of technological artefacts

The commodity level: the utilitarian function of technology

The machinery level: Transparent and interactive devices

The level of symbolic meaning: technology as signifier

Understanding Innovation in Education Using Activity Theory

Activity Theory Model

Figure 1. Activity System of Teacher A

Grade Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D 4th 4th 5th 4th

The Innovation Cluster

Data Collection and Analysis

Figure 2. Teacher As Work Activity System

Figure 3. Teacher Bs Work Activity System

Figure 4. Teacher Cs Work Activity System

Figure 5. Teacher Ds Work Activity System

Figure 6. Transformation Model

Mediated presence, perceptions of others in online interaction

Immediacys relation to presence

Learning outcomes - cognitive learning

Learning outcomes - affective learning

The Context: Online Graduate Genetics

Rating .07 .33 .75** .46

Attitude .40 .70** .05 -.04 .32

Satisf .69** .52* .15 -.11 .00 .63**

Permanent Injustice: Rawls' Theory of Justice and the Digital Divide

Designer Support for Online Collaboration and Knowledge Construction

Creating a Shared Social Context

Metaphorical Design: Graphical Representations of the Virtual Environment

Informational support for decision-making