|
|
|
|
|
Report
from
a DUSC
project,
November 2001
| Chapter 1 | Background and origin |
| Chapter 2 |
PHASE 1: development of the module |
| Chapter 3 |
Considerations and extracts from the module |
| Chapter 4 |
PHASE 2: Test and Evaluation of the module |
| Chapter 5 |
Afterthoughts and conclusions |
| Appendices |
Appendix
1: |
| References | Footnotes |
In
the summer of 1997 four institutes of higher education in the Netherlands,
namely Hogeschool Haarlem,
Hogeschool Holland, Hogeschool Amsterdam and Hogeschool Rotterdam formed the Randstad
Consortium in a joint effort to develop expertise with Scandinavian
institutions of higher education in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, to begin with.[1]
The
consortium received a subsidy from the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture
and Science (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur & Wetenschappen), issued
within the framework of a scheme to stimulate the structural, international
cooperation of higher educational institutes up to the year 2000. With this
scheme, and hence within the subsidy’s confines, the Dutch Minister of
Education sought to encourage a structural collaboration between the
educational institutions of a number of European countries, including those
mentioned above.
A
steering committee of the Randstad Consortium, consisting of the Heads of the
International Offices of each of the Dutch higher educational
institutes and an independent programme manager, started mid 1997 by
establishing an outline of the intended “Dutch
Scandinavian Cooperation
in Higher Education” (known as DUSC from then on). Information and
Communication Technology was an explicit objective within DUSC from the start
of the programme, but was regarded at first as a sub-component of three
broadly formulated projects, namely:
The
already existing partnerships of the four higher educational institutes[2]
were taken as a point of departure for inviting Scandinavian institutions to
participate in DUSC. The result of this was eight partners from Denmark,
Norway and Sweden who were all paid a visit and informed about the objectives
of the intended cooperation. There were positive reactions and common
interests; in short, the conclusion was that cooperation could be beneficial
to all parties.
A
starting conference in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in October 1998, was the
kick off for the process of cooperation. Representatives from all the
participating higher educational institutes from both Scandinavia and the
Netherlands, were present in the hope of developing joint activities on the
basis of the preparations done in the steering committee and the several (Dutch)
project groups around the three above-mentioned themes.
One
group that was formed under the proposed project of Active Learning was
a project group interested in developing a module to train lecturers in how to
develop a course for distance education, making use of the concept of
collaborative learning. This DUSC project group (one out of approximately 10
project groups) was later to be called CLiDE,
Collaborative Learning in Distance Education.
After
a difficult first year without much progress (due to different factors such as
drop-outs, lack of interest and trying to find new partners) the CLIDE group
made a real and solid start at the second (annual) DUSC conference held in
Oslo, Norway in November, 1999[3].
The conference provided the project group, now consisting of four lecturers in
higher education from three different institutes[4],
with the opportunity to draw up a solid work plan of activities, which formed
the basis of cooperation for the months to come. ICT was to be the main means
of communication, in line with one of the specific objectives of the DUSC
initiative.
The
aim of the project was to develop a module to train lecturers in how to
develop a course based on the concept of active learning in distance education.
The idea was that up to now lecturers have been trained to develop an active
learning course in a classroom situation, but often do not have the skills to
develop such a course for their students at a distance, whether the students
live near school or far away in another country for example.
The
strength of collaborative learning, which is brought forward by many
educational theorists, lies in the importance of social interaction to
learning. Learning in relation to the individual means: collect, produce,
manipulate, synthesize, transform and report. In relation to social
interaction it means: cooperate, communicate, share and exchange, facilitating
a great diversity of learning aspects.
As
Information and Communication Technologies opened new ways of learning, ICT allowed
new ways for group interaction and support, whilst at the same time providing
access to a global network of distributed (personal) knowledge and expertise
of peer learners, experts, teachers, trainers and tutors.
The
members of the project group decided it was best to actually go through the
process themselves in order to gain experience in how to implement and deal
with active learning in distance education. Their plan of activities was based
on this principle.
After the development of the module the module was to be tested and evaluated by running it with a selection of interested lecturers within the educational institutes of the DUSC network. At a later stage, after enhancing the quality of the module based on the experiences of delivering the course in the test group, the module would be disseminated to lecturers or teachers outside the DUSC network.
During
the joint DUSC conference in Oslo, October 1999, a “Plan of Activity 2000”
was developed for the project group. The objectives stated in the plan clearly
divided our work into two different phases: Firstly, To develop a module to train
lecturers in how to develop a course based on using the concept of
collaborative learning in distance education, and secondly, To
test and evaluate the module. Accordingly, the first few months we
were supposed to cooperate and collaborate in a creative design and
development process, and then, for the next months, try out our results with a
group of students. Most of the collaboration was to be mediated by means of
electronic networks. This way of organising a project work seemed very useful
and interesting, because by developing a course in a collaborative way (phase
1), we would go through processes similar to our students when the developed
module was to be tested and evaluated (phase 2). We believed that this
experience would make us better teachers and tutors for our students. For
distance education courses in general, this way of developing a course may
prove to be successful.
For
the first phase, the Plan of Activity outlined four different elements or
themes to be worked out by the project group:
The concept of collaborative learning
The
choice of the digital learning space
The
practical experience
Critical success factors
These
themes were placed in a timetable to ensure a reasonable progress in the
project: Phase 1 had to be finished by October/November 2000, in due time to
start phase 2 primo December 2000.
In
phase 2, starting primo December 2000 and ending in May 2001, our developed
module was to be tested and evaluated by about 10 lecturers/academic staff
from the DUSC participating institutions.
The
initial plan was to use the seven-jump
procedure, known from the Problem
Based Learning literature[5]
in our collaborative work in the project group. In many branches of college
training, this method gives good results in traditional collaborative
processes. In this CLiDE project, we realised at an early stage that PBL was
perhaps not the best basis for collaboration in our considered themes. This
can have many different causes: It may be due to the fact that the project
group members originated from different academic traditions, with diversified
teaching experiences in very different subjects. Not all of us were familiar
with the use of the PBL method, and we found out that the objectives in the
project did not sufficiently match the PBL model.
This
was in fact a “distance project group”, with members in two different
countries (Holland and Norway). We had to rely on electronic communication,
and decided to do the greater part of our collaboration based on the
asynchronous system BSCW[6].
BSCW is a computer-based conferencing tool, developed at German National Research Center for Information Technology
(GMD), and have facilities for a great range of functionalities:
Managing discussions and collaborative processes, possibilities for sharing
documents, sending and receiving messages, organising the information in many
different ways, searching and statistical possibilities, among others. We
found this tool to be a good place for our discussions and contributions
toward our final product: The module. We could all reach our common space in
BSCW from wherever we were in the world, and so our project work, as far as
this collaboration is concerned, was distance-independent.
The
themes A through D (see above) were organised to secure the best structure and
progress: Each of the project group members was assigned the role of moderator
for one of the themes, and thus our responsibilities were shared by all of us.
It was also our intention that being in charge in the moderating role would
provide us, the project group members, with valuable experience in this aspect
of conferencing and collaboration work. By doing this in phase 1 of the
project, we felt we would be better prepared for the testing and evaluating
part (phase 2).
We
also planned other activities, other ways to do part of our project. In theme
B, The choice of the digital learning
space, we used a videoconference session, in addition to BSCW. In theme C,
The practical experience, we used a
synchronous, computer-based conferencing tool (Microsoft NetMeeting), and
after theme C, we planned and carried out a face-to-face meeting in Bergen.
See below for experiences with these different sessions. A web-site[7]
was also established for the project; there we gathered some overall
information, plans, links to literature, etc.
The
collaboration process toward the course module gave us a lot of challenges.
First of all we had to get familiar with the BSCW tool, and how to use it in
this setting. We experienced the importance of carefully organising our
material, and many times we had to rearrange part of the structure to make the
content clearer. A typical screen showing our discussions in the phase 1
period is shown in fig. 2.1. Each of the folders can have content organised in
a similar way as shown here. On the top, we find the name of the folder, and
where it is located in the hierarchy. On the top of the page, and behind the
arrows in right column, we also find menus and buttons for different possible
actions to perform on individual objects. For some kinds of actions, the
buttons/links are placed by the individual objects (see fig. 2.1)[8].
Next
to one of the folders, “Bergen Meeting”, we see a different icon, because
this folder is indexed as a “Meeting folder” in BSCW, and some special
action buttons are activated. If
we look into this folder, shown in fig. 2.2a, we find some information about
the meeting, and behind the arrow in the top right corner there is a menu to
choose from. We open “Attachments” and get fig. 2.2b. This is an interface
similar to fig. 2.1, with some objects, menus and some action buttons. The
objects have an icon attached, to show what kind of object it is. In this
example, there are two pictures and one “discussion” in the attachments
folder. Inside the discussion (not shown here) we will find some notes,
comments and ideas. In the “View” menu on top of the page we can choose
how to present the information. The possibility to choose, among different
options, the interface between the individual person and the BSCW system is
very important in order to facilitate matters for each group member.
Just
to show how the discussions appear on the screen, one small discussion is
shown in fig. 2.3. This discussion is in the latter part of phase 1, planning
the start of phase 2. The name of the discussion is “Organisational aspects”.
It
is not our intention to go into details about the BSCW structure in this
report, only to show some examples. However, one of the main objectives in the
project is to do collaborative projects by means of electronic communication,
and it is therefore important to identify how some system characteristics
influence the collaborative process and collaborative learning.
Although
the BSCW asynchronous system was used throughout the project as the main
working arena, we were aware of the fact that collaboration benefits from the
use of a synchronous tool, where certain aspects of communication are
concerned. Therefore we decided for one of the themes to have a
videoconference session. To be well prepared for the videoconference we
studied some useful information, which was provided by the “Video
Development Initiative”[9]
and the “Videoconference Protocols”[10].
The
two Norwegian participants gathered in a studio in Bergen University College,
and the two Dutch participants gathered in a studio in Hogeschool Haarlem.
With up
Videoconferences
used on a regular basis based upon the ISDN-technology will be rather
expensive. It is expensive to hold open lines for hours, and expensive
equipment is necessary to obtain sufficient communication quality. There are
indeed other ways to communicate synchronously, and we decided to try
Microsoft’s NetMeeting, based on the H.323 Internet protocol[11].
This tool does not give the same “feeling” of being present in a physical
meeting, because with NetMeeting we usually sit alone in our office,
communicating with our collaborators through the computer.
With
NetMeeting we experienced other difficulties, namely the inability to operate
through the firewalls of our institutions. This was, and still is, a serious
obstacle for synchronously computer-based communication systems. For security
reasons, the people in our institutions in charge of the network security will
not open up gates for this kind of communication. In this project, we evaded
the problem by using computers outside the firewalls, and thereby got some
experience with the tool, but for future application, special provisions must
be made within our institutions to make the use of NetMeeting more accessible
for staff members in (international and distance) projects like these.
If
possible, this is of course the best way to meet other people, talk together
and collaborate on a subject. In this project, it was our intention to examine
different ways to collaborate where f2f meetings were impossible or at least
very inconvenient. Fortunately, even if we were located in two different
countries and regular f2f meetings were inconvenient, we did manage to meet
four times during these two years, in Amsterdam, Oslo, Bergen and then again
in Amsterdam and Haarlem. Looking back, what we regarded as most important
during these meetings was the opportunity to get familiar with each other, to
have a better idea of the people we were going to cooperate with, to hear each
other’s voices, feel the atmosphere and to get attuned to each other.
Sometimes in our virtual meeting place misunderstandings arose, and we
experienced a f2f meeting as a good place to clear things up.
It
was our intention to have a f2f-meeting for our project students, to prepare
the ground for the collaboration process, to make good and workable
arrangements and agreements before starting on the virtual part of the
collaboration. We realised that the fact that we were able to meet physically
as the very beginning of our project had immense consequence for the
communication in our group. Unfortunately it was not possible to arrange a
similar f2f-meeting for our project students, and the project suffered from
that.
Here
we would like to present a number of the leading principles that formed the
basis for the design of our module. Our first priority was to keep things
manageable for our students (and for us) and therefore limit the number of
tasks to four in all, in fact just as we had defined our four themes in the
initial work plan.
The first task was meant to
make the students familiar with the general structure of BSCW and at the same
time allow our students to introduce themselves on the web, tackling two
essential elements of web based learning, namely the social and technological
side. There were assignments to get to know some of the important operations
with the folders and establishing a kind of routine with the BSCW system was
another important goal (see learning objectives for task 1 later in this
chapter).
Our
second task was designed with a view to providing our “students” with the
two different perspectives in distance learning situations. This was done by
presenting them with a case written from the perspectives of the two different
parties involved in education, in other words from the student’s and the
teacher’s point of view. As the participants themselves had only just become
used to the system, we considered that they were highly likely to recognize
the learning situation, partly as students themselves now, but they would also
be able to assess the case from the perspective of the teacher, which is after
all part of their daily business and regular responsibilities, being lecturers
themselves. We hoped to generate a lively discussion in the student group
around the case, which was based on a familiar and realistic situation.
The different tools used for collaborative learning
in web based education (see chapter 2 and appendix 2) was the focus of
task number 3. By getting a taste of one or more of these tools we intended to
make our participants aware of the fact that each tool has its strengths and
weaknesses. By experiencing this themselves they would be better prepared in
making solid choices for one tool or another in the design of their own
courses.
Instead of a problem case as the starting point we then
formulated a number of statements or propositions for our participants to
discuss among themselves in order to challenge them to find arguments for and
against these statements and to provide them with ample opportunity to
exchange views with each other and stimulate interaction in this way.
All the knowledge and skills, both technical and social,
would then be put to good use in task 4 as they were required to write a joint
paper on one topic of their choice from a list of options. All the options
dealt with collaborative learning in web based environments, but each had a
different focus. This is where they could show the real process of
collaboration via the web, whether they chose BSCW as their main (but
asynchronous) channel of communication or (the synchronous options of)
NetMeeting or a videoconference to round things off. In our introduction to
the task we supported them by advising them on a workable procedure to tackle
this complex task.
As for group composition, we had decided to divide the
participants over small groups with a maximum of 5 per group. This allowed our
students, in our view, to work comfortably with a limited number of people and
to maximise the learning potential within the course.
As regards schedules and deadlines, we thought it best
to divide the four tasks over a period of 6 months, allowing our participants
plenty of time for each task.
After outlining the leading principles behind the design of the CLiDE course it is now time to display the contents. The map shows part of the BSCW hyperstructure of the course, clicking the labeled boxes in the map will display individual web-pages, as the user sees them on the web.
Having
designed the module, the project moved into the next phase and the time had come
to test our newly developed course by delivering and evaluating it. Before we
turn to the participants in the module, an explanation is needed about the way
we approached our students-to-be.
Recruiting
potential candidates proved more difficult than we had anticipated. Although all
the institutes participating in the DUSC network were approached, at a very
early stage, with the free offer of our course in collaborative learning via the
web, there was hardly any response, strangely enough. Despite the fact that our
initial attempts failed, the group kept trying to find candidates via personal
networks and approaching people individually, which finally resulted in a group
of 8 “students”, all employed at institutes for higher education, which are
part of the DUSC network. The group of candidates can be described as a diverse
group, consisting of lecturers in different disciplines and in different
settings.
Our
plans were to start the course at the annual meeting of the DUSC network, which
was to be held at Gävle, Sweden in November 2000. We had planned to hold a
half-day workshop, specifically aimed at getting started with our Clide course,
both technically and socially. Much of the material we had studied about
web-based education and distance learning had
made us aware of the fact that it is extremely difficult to start and
successfully finish a course with a virtual group. Major reasons for this are
the technical difficulties that students have to overcome in getting started to
work with the material and the equipment, and the social side of working in a
group with people who are unfamiliar to you. The face to face workshop was meant
to address both obstacles and pave the way towards a well-run educational course
via the internet, building on the knowledge and practical skills on the one hand
and having broken the ice (probably even establishing good contact) with the
group members of the module ahead. However, at a late stage the DUSC steering
committee cancelled the annual meeting at Gävle due to the minimal interest of
partners from the Scandinavian side, which meant that our plans for introducing
and starting up the course had to be dropped as well, unfortunately.
It
was decided that working in two small groups of four would be more beneficial to
the group members than working in one bigger group. The opportunity of giving
(and getting) more stimulation and a more personal approach, thereby fostering
more involvement were seen as advantages in a smaller group. Besides, it was
expected that participants couldn’t easily hide behind the others in a smaller
group.
In
the process of running the module, however, we decided in favour of forming one
group because of cancellations, as it appeared that after the first task only
three students had proved to be active.
A
week or two before the course started all the participants were notified by way
of an e-mail (of a social character) that the course was due to start within a
short period and that they would receive a formal invitation to register with
the BSCW platform. When the formal and functional automated message from the
BSCW server was sent, it was preceded by a few less formal words from the
tutors, wishing the candidates good luck with the course. Another e-mail was
sent on the starting date announcing the fact that the course had then
officially started.
The
next step was up to the participants, namely to register by giving a user name
and a password, which automatically allowed each participant entrance to the
workspace with all the course material designed for them. Registering proved to
be difficult for one of the candidates, so the initial process had to be
repeated a few times and quite a few e-mails had to be sent before registration
was successful for this participant. Half way in week 2 of the first task 5 (of
the 8) participants had registered.
From
the start the tutors intended to work via the principle of: “learning by doing
it”. Apart from that, there were more specific objectives to reach. For the
first task the learning objectives were:
The
assignments designed for this task had an introductory and familiarising
character. They were meant to introduce the students to each other, to establish
some ground rules to work with each other and to try out a number of the most
useful buttons and options.
The
results were as follows:
As
for the quality of the contributions one can conclude the following:
The
learning objectives for this task were:
The
assignment for this task was designed by way of a case to be solved by the
students jointly, while pointing them to some resources for them to use for this
task. (From this task onwards the two subgroups were rearranged, in other words
put together in order to find more challenge and stimulation within the group,
leading to a better learning environment we hoped.)
The
results were as follows:
As
for the quality of the contributions:
After
some deliberation it was decided by the tutors jointly to expand the time span
for task 2 with one week to provide more opportunity for solid contributions and
to give the collaborative side to the
learning activities a chance to flourish. As we estimated a later start in task
3 wouldn’t be harmful to the learning process in general. In fact we had
anticipated it would strengthen it due to the growing activity that we noticed
towards the end. Besides we considered that the successful completion of
task 2 would set off a more intensive collaboration process in task 3.
This turned out to be a false assumption.
The
learning objectives for this task were:
The
assignments were meant to make a start with the BSCW system for the discussion
of a number of selected statements, all focussed on the use of different tools
in distance or web-based learning. Again resources were supplied with the task,
e.g. a succinct chapter outlining what tools were available and how they were
used in distance education in general. In the course of this task the students
would automatically find the need for some synchronous learning, using a tool
like video-conferencing or chatting.
The
results were as follows:
As
for the quality of the contributions:
This
section can be brief, there were simply no contributions towards this task. The
reason for this will most probably be that this final task was meant to build on
all the knowledge and skills gained so far, but above all it was the task that
was specifically designed as a project task to be performed by the group as a
whole. As there had been no real collaboration process in the previous 3 tasks,
the tutors’ expectations for their students rounding off this task
successfully had fallen as the course developed through tasks 1, 2 and 3.
Before
the start of the module, it was decided that the moderation was to be done by
tutors in pairs. Although all the tutors had sufficient knowledge and skills on
both the “tech” part and the “touch” part, it was thought best to have
pairs of tutors consisting of a more technically oriented tutor together with a
tutor who felt more at ease with the social (and educational) side of the module.
Moreover, the pairs needed to be of mixed nationalities.
The
two tutors would then take turns in taking the leading role in the moderation of
the course, and would turn to the other if he/she needed advice or support in
the moderation task.
All
four tutors agreed that their main role in the course would be (among others)
giving stimulation and guidance, giving positive feedback, steering the
discussions towards the learning objectives, raising awareness to important
issues and crystallizing the learning, in fact all the elements of successful
coaching of people.
Some
of the methods that were used were e.g. showing examples of ways to do things,
hinting towards the participants possible avenues to follow, a short video where
the tutor encouraged the participants and showed support, offering additional
interesting material to work with, pointing the participants to relevant items
from their fellow-participants to stimulate further collaboration etc.
At
the end of each task the main tutor summarised what had been achieved and
rounded off with encouraging remarks towards the next task.
Although
the tutors had planned a full evaluation with the participants, we didn’t get
round to doing it due to the decreasing response in task 3 and the final task.
In fact, our final e-mail thanking all the participants for their contributions
left ample room for comments or reactions, but none were made. Still, if one
reads the contributions carefully, there are definitely a number of evaluative
remarks worth mentioning. Here is a collection of those with quotations from the
workspace:
“Full
of enthusiasm I agree to participate, because I really am interested. Then I
realise that it takes time and it is not part of my job. Further it took me more
time than I thought to get used to BSCW during the first assignment. And I feel
computer related problems very discouraging. …. Also it would be quite helpful
to have some technical support and well equipped computers.”
“I
agree, it is hard and difficult, and conditions should be more supportive”.
“Of
course the situation is not funny. I am very much convinced that it will become
even worse in the future, as no institution will be able to pay all the
up-grading necessary to make the technology work.”
“For
me personally that means that next time I will put more effort in negotiating
facilities in terms of time input with my superiors”.
“Maybe
it is an option to start up a new module with some “real” students who can
get some credits for their activity (motivation/obligation)”.
“Also
it could be considered to use rewards as a means to get more commitment.”
“Maybe a course like Clide could start with two days
training in subjects related to e-learning:
how to collaborate
how
to give feedback
how
to work as a group
how
to accumulate insight instead of contradict opinions
how
to support each other
additions welcome”
“The
assignments are very openly structured, not to say unstructured to be a guidance
in a learning process where you have to count on naïve innocent persons like me,
who are not that easily moved forward.”
“One of the problems with distance communication is,
I think, to stream(?) the discussion and the program.”
“Might it be that more concrete assignments would
give more results?”
“Maybe this is somehow contradictory to the specific
nature of e-learning but it could be helpful to plan something like a weekly on
line “chat hour”. To make sure that the participants would have contact at
least once a week and react to each other immediately.”
“Is discussion the best way to learn?
“Could we bring more variety in the type of
assignments?”
“But learning is not the same as communicating (although
it does not exclude it). When we arrange learning activities by the web, content
has to be transported.”
“Should we commit ourselves to a more tight time
schedule?”
“For
a videoconference you need more preparation (planned time, conferencing room /
equipment). I think videoconference should be well overthought (?) and cannot be
held frequently. Or there should be a prearranged programme (ex. Every second
Monday of the month).”
“To have the discipline to look at the discussions
every two days as Ida suggested is not always easy.”
“Not
to run away from my personal responsibility. In this respect I see (looking at
myself) a problem of discipline and priorities. I think e-learning demands a
great deal of discipline.”
“I think we will have another practical problem. Our
own problem “time”. We are very close to 17th of February. What
can we do on this??? How can we solve our own problem? Is this only our problem
or could this be a main problem in long distance learning??”
“In my former contributions I tried to relate to the
questions from my own experience, merely thinking aloud, brainstorming. I
received reactions from you xxx, mainly pointing out that my opinions were wrong.
For me that blocked the discussion. It did not motivate me to continue the
discussion. Maybe it would be good to model our reactions more as feedback
instead of a “right or wrong” discussion.”
“Till
now, I haven’t reacted. Because I was a little bit shocked after finishing the
last task. Well we start up the new task, I hope with a good discussion and
result.”
Having
come to the end of this chapter, the tutors would most probably corroborate
that these issues were also the issues that affected the process and
product of their collaborative work while designing and working out the Clide
course. The difference that the tutors persisted and the participants
dropped out is possibly due to the fact that the tutors knew that they were
working towards a most concrete product in the form of a module and that the
tutors were indeed facilitated by the DUSC subsidies as regards their time input
in the construction of the module.
Looking
back now, we can conclude that our Clide project within the DUSC programme was
one of the more successful projects that could stand the test of time. Although
the project had its difficult moments, there was a general feeling of commitment
to continue and finish the project properly. Keeping a long term international
relationship or collaborative project going is not an easy matter; all the time
one has to work on it to keep it moving and in order to round things off
successfully. Out of sight, out of mind, a well-known proverb, is definitely
still applicable in international projects at a time that more and more demands
are made upon staff members within higher educational institutes.
Let’s
try to indicate some of the factors that contributed to the success of the CLIDE
project, in our view:
The
DUSC programme offered an ideal opportunity to work out an international project
like ours. The facilities that were created for us within the three year
programme as regards time, money and expertise in running a large scale
international cooperation programme, provided us with a solid base to work from[12].by
its excellent management and organisational structure. It allowed us to meet
each other at the annual DUSC meetings, keep abreast of new developments around
the internationalisation of higher education and pool experiences with the other
international projects and learn from that. Moreover, it provided us with a
network of lecturers to test out our product, the module, and to disseminate it
among all the interested institutes after the DUSC programme had come to an end.
The
number of people (four in all) was the ideal number to work with. The fact that
we came from a diversity of four different study programmes within higher
education[13] but were strangely enough
often in total agreement with each other, can also be seen as a positive factor.
Although
a positive and creative spirit within a project group is an essential ingredient,
we would like to propose that a project group in order to be successful should
incorporate (within the group as a whole), a range of capabilities or
characteristics, such as enthusiasm, motivation, a sense of structuring and
timing, imagination, critical thinking, compromise, self-discipline, realism,
flexibility, decisiveness, helpfulness, expertise, resourcefulness, loyalty,
confidence, open-mindedness, willpower to continue, willingness to share and
interdependency to name a few. As it happened, quite a number of those (and
more) ingredients were present among the members of our group, in fact we
complemented each other in many ways. Despite the fact that one never knows in
advance what the strengths and weaknesses of a group will be, there is a lot to
say for checking this matter at an early stage.
According
to us, our asynchronous BSCW tool facilitated the way we could work together.
It meant a continuous meeting place for us, a stable base to work from
and at the same time an easily accessible archive of all the material that we
discussed and all the activities that we undertook.
Building
up expertise together, developing yourself and the group as a whole by going
through a number of separate and clearly structured stages with each other,
taking rotating independent responsibilities (to keep each one of us alert and
motivated), pooling resources and knowledge, making joint selections, and then
taking these personal learning experiences even further by putting them to use
in the same project: this variety of elements and concrete tasks kept the
project alive and contributed highly to our achievements.
Last
but certainly not least, it must be stated that there was an interesting spin
off for our institutes. Without too much trouble we could translate, as it were,
our efforts into concrete actions within the working environment where we
usually operate and these activities were warmly welcomed. All in all, we feel
we have greatly benefited from this unusual experience provided for us by the
DUSC programme.
As we have mentioned earlier, a great deal of the
project was based on our assumption that developing a distance learning (or
web based) course by a team of tutors who make use of the same methods and
equipment and who go through the same processes as the students they develop the
course for, is a more successful course of action than the development of such a
course within one institution by a home-based team of tutors.
Our recommendation would be to explore and research
this assumption further in future international projects.
This
module is based on the experiences of your
course tutors , who accumulated a wealth of information and expertise in the
past year by going through a number of learning processes while working on the
construction of this module. In this first chapter you will find information
about our working process, our concept of collaborative learning including the
teacher’s role and the value of collaborative learning in web-based education.
In
our project we set out to work via the principle of learning by doing, in other
words to experiment on collaborative learning in distance education by
developing this project and this module in a collaborative way. At our initial
meeting in Oslo (October 1999) we jointly decided on a number of themes (all in
all 4)[14]
to work on. We also decided that each theme would be explored with a different
ICT tool, in order to find out how effectively each of these tools works and to
experience the strengths and weaknesses of each of the tools. The first (and
permanent tool) to be used was the discussion group method or CMC (Computer
Mediated Communication) at the BSCW site (Basic Support for Co-operative Work,
based in Germany)[15].
The first theme focussed on discussing our own individual concepts of
collaborative learning.
At
the initial meeting in Oslo, decisions had also been made to assign special
responsibility to one member of our group for each of the themes, which meant
that each theme was “moderated” by a particular group member, who would
monitor the process, summarise the contributions, keep a general overview and
write the final paper on the theme as input to the module, next to his/her own
participation in the discussion. All the themes, worked out into separate papers,
were meant to build up and produce the material for the module for tutors/lecturers
in higher education who are starting on (or considering) projects using
collaborative learning in web-based education.
Things
worked out a little differently in the end. At our interim (physical) meeting in
Bergen, we adjusted our plans and course of action and came to a number of
decisions, which resolved our tasks of writing the actual module.
Our
joint definition of collaborative learning is as follows: “active learning in
groups with the purpose of achieving competence and generating/creating
knowledge by co-operating, communicating, sharing and exchanging".
However,
the process side to this definition leaves ample room for questions and
consequently, different views. Examining
a number of issues in the collaborative learning process logically leads one to
focus more closely on the two main components, namely the tutor’s/lecturer’s
role in collaborative learning and the student’s role. The element of distance
education, or Internet-enabled education adds a special dimension to this, which
will be dealt with along the way.
The role of a teacher/lecturer is not the traditional one anymore, where students expect the teacher to tell them what to do, how to do it and pass on a lot of knowledge along the way. There is general agreement that the role of a lecturer has changed into assisting, facilitating and coaching the learning process of the students, giving feedback, stimulation, inspiration and encouragement, observing, helping and guiding where necessary.
Some
will add that the teacher must become a collaborative member of the system
without surrendering the unique powers and responsibilities of leadership that
can and must facilitate and guide the learning process.
If
we agree that it is the overall responsibility of the lecturer to make the
arrangements and create such a learning environment that collaborative processes
can take place and are sustained, then this leaves us with the question: how
active or passive should a lecturer be in his role?
Experiences
from our group show that it is difficult to keep a group on the right track,
especially in a virtual setting. Tackling this problem is definitely up to the
lecturer to a great extent, but how and how frequently is often not clearly
defined in advance.
One
aspect that may form an essential element in a collaborative project is the
start. It is in fact THE moment for a lecturer to introduce himself and
the project assignments to be worked out. In (collaborative) project work within
an educational institution one easily notices that it is difficult to get the
students going when they feel they haven’t got a good grasp on the tasks at
hand or when they don’t seem to understand the goals and assignments ahead of
them. For projects in distance education, in a virtual classroom, this will not
be any different, in fact it could definitely make things worse. Some
complicating factors could be: To what extent e.g. are the students familiar
with all the ICT tools to be used in the project, what equipment can be used
collectively, which individually? what to do if there is no response at all from
your fellow group members or if systems are somehow incompatible? Knowing or not
knowing who your (sub)group members are could be another factor, which could
complicate things and put students off .
These
and other complicating factors can be recognised and dealt with effectively (or:
anticipated and alleviated) when the web-based education project starts with a live
or physical meeting with group members and tutor / lecturer. With the right
starting programme (dealing with the product and the process side of the project)
students can jointly prepare the ground for the coming period of virtual project
work and feel stimulated to really commence with their project (while the tutor
is still physically available to them). The starting meeting would be the ideal
moment to decide on working procedures and to create the right group atmosphere
(or group culture), after familiarising themselves with the tasks at hand and
getting to know their lecturer, their coach for the coming period. This solid
foundation at the start could mean the difference between success and failure,
as we all will realise that in distance education the absence of face-to-face
contact could lead to students hiding behind their computers and not responding
to messages, even if they are meant as encouragement or assistance.
However,
if by any chance such a solid, physical start together cannot take place because
of financial reasons e.g., then it is still feasible to take up a collaborative
project in distance education in our opinion, but that would definitely require
special competencies on the part of the students (as well as the tutor) in order
to finish a project successfully.
Cognitive
research on educational practices emphasises the significance of collaborative
learning in human cognitive and social development. The emerging research on
collaborative learning in distance education involves the mutual engagement of
participants in co-ordinated efforts to build new knowledge and to solve
problems together[16].
In a shared problem-solving process, students who have partial but different
information about the problem in question appear to improve their understanding
through social interaction. In fact,
the diversity of cognitive styles, heterogeneity of developing competencies,
differences in experiences and knowledge, and a multiplicity of interests are
strengths rather than weaknesses in collaborative learning. In other words, the
idea behind collaborative learning is that one can capitalise on cognitive
diversity through joint problem solving and one can make use of the particular
talents of the individual group members. If one person is a good organiser, it
may be a good idea to let that person pull the project together and assign
“jobs” to everyone else. If one person is a computer person, then perhaps
that person can introduce and help the rest of the group with the electronic
resources.
Our
idea is that still many teachers are relying on the so-called
“one to one” learning model and focus more on individual students
than on trying to create collaborative learning groups of students, and possibly
also (as in our module) on collaborative learning communities of teachers.
As
ICT can now facilitate a digital learning environment, it is high time teachers/lecturers
experience this learning environment for themselves to assess its potential for
the richness of intellectual activities they can now create in their
instructional design of modules. Collaborative learning in web-based education
can be enjoyable, cognitively challenging, socially meaningful and culturally
relevant, as we hope you will experience yourselves in the course of this module.
As in all teamwork, collaboration involves working together under conditions
that emphasise peer-exchange, shared goals and the added value of co-operative
enterprise, which is why collaborative learning implies the acquisition (by
individuals) of knowledge, skills and/or attitudes occurring as a result of
group interaction. Computer conferencing is a particularly suitable vehicle for
generating this kind of collaborative work, as this tool involves a shared space
for the exchange of ideas and the work on a common (written) product.
As it is our goal to increase your understanding of the collaborative learning process and the students’ actual experiences in an Internet-enabled course, we hope you will also experience the way students manage their feelings of isolation in a virtual classroom, and the way they resolve potentially frustrating problems, two aspects that can easily be discussed and resolved in a face-to-face meeting.
Having
finished the course you will realise just what the complexities of working and
communicating with new media consist of and the role you, as a tutor, will have
to play to effectively teach with the new ICT tools.
In
this module we have chosen to use BSCW as the basic and permanent digital
learning environment. More (factual) information about ICT tools will follow in
the next chapter.
This
course focuses on the communication part, or more specifically, the collaborative
learning part of distance education, by means of computer based tools. In
the following paragraphs, we will present some views and questions about three
different tools, and draw attention to specific characteristics, which should be
kept in mind when choosing tools for computer based communication.
It is important to realise that there is a
wide range of computer based tools available for educational purposes, more or
less specialised tools for specific tasks. When choosing tools for a course, we
should think deeply about the level of
Web integration we want for the course. Bonk et. al. (1999)[17]
describes in their paper how, in a systematic way, the web can be integrated in
a course at different levels. When the issue is collaborative learning, we have
chosen to limit our scope to three different tools addressing three different
aspects of communication. These are an asynchronous
computer based communication tool (BSCW), a synchronous
computer based communication tool (NetMeeting) and videoconference.
This chapter is an introduction into the functionality of these tools
with respect to collaborative teaching and learning. Some references for further
reading will be given, when and where applicable.
By using a tool in the communication process
of teaching and learning, other than the natural and often subtle forms of
communication, like body language in face-to-face meetings, these tools will, in
one way or another, influence the pedagogy, or in other words the way the
teacher teaches and the way the student learns. In most kinds of distance
learning settings, where a student can physically “hide” from the teacher
and classmates, the responsibility of the learning is in a more explicit way
placed on the student him/herself. When the course, in addition, relies heavily
on technology based tools, like computers, students will face new, additional,
challenges. It is important for teachers to be aware of these challenges and
needs, in order to give their students the best possible preparation before the
course and the best possible coaching during the course.
Computer based communication through the
Internet has traditions before the World Wide Web came into common use (with the
introduction of Mosaic in 1993). There
were several conferencing systems available; most of them based on the telnet
protocol, where participants could send their messages to a shared virtual room.
The technology was called Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). Most of these
virtual conferences were what we call asynchronous.
That means that the participants don’t have to be present in the virtual room
at the same time, they just read messages and leave their new messages there.
Later on, other participants log in, respond to messages and keep the process
going. The functionality of these first virtual conferences was to a great
extent limited to the exchange of text messages. Other file formats, like
graphics and sound, had to be transmitted through other Internet Protocols (like
ftp). Along with this technology,
telnet-based synchronous communication
systems were developed. These were systems where participants simultaneously
were logged into a telnet host, and a message was immediately seen and
recognised by the others. Two of the most popular systems of this kind in the
early nineties are called Multi User Domain (MUD), and MUD-object oriented (MOO).
With the web-technology all this changed
dramatically. Systems became a lot user-friendlier, and several different
functions could be integrated into one single tool. Fundamentally, the web is an
asynchronous system, but synchronous tools can be integrated, as the
applications can be seen and used through the web browser.
The following matrix gives an overview of the required functionality and the tools needed and available in this course:
Function
|
Tool |
How to use |
|
Introduction, general info |
Web-browser, like Internet Explorer |
A web-address (URL) will be given |
|
Create short notes / replies |
BSCW |
Through your web-browser |
|
Create formatted text |
Word processor (like Word etc.) |
Upload file to BSCW |
|
Create graphics etc. |
Any standard application |
Upload file to BSCW |
|
Asynchronous
communication: |
||
|
·Visit
the common virtual room, the virtual meeting place / work space |
BSCW |
Through your web-browser |
|
·Create
messages |
BSCW/email |
(Use email for private messages only, or
messages not meant for all the members of the BSCW-space) |
|
·Read
messages |
BSCW/email |
|
|
·Communicate
with your tutor |
email/BSCW |
|
|
Synchronous
communication: |
||
|
·Computer
based |
NetMeeting |
(Free) part of the Microsoft Windows package.
Can communicate with similar applications on other platforms (Mac a/o.) |
|
·Videoconference |
Video studio |
|
|
·Face-to-face/live meetings/telephone |
Car/Aeroplane/ |
Will be used if possible |
|
Assignment submission |
email/BSCW |
|
The different tools will be discussed in more detail later. A
prerequisite (not mentioned in the table) is a satisfactory Internet connection
and a later web-browser version.
When developing this course, even when writing
these chapters, your tutors in the project group communicated extensively
through the asynchronous tool BSCW. In this process we gained valuable
experience in the functionality of the system and we learned what works and for
what purpose, we learned how to behave in a virtual meeting place, how to
perform the moderator's task, and so on.
One of our first common experiences was the
importance of having the system introduced properly before a course starts. To
avoid a confusing structure, to learn where and how to post contributions, to
learn the meaning of the different symbols frequently used and shown on the site,
to give ourselves an overview of possible functions and options, that’s all
crucial for how we will succeed with the tool, and for our attitude to work this
way. BSCW, like most modern similar systems, has extensive online help and there
is also a complete (100 page) manual available to print out. To get familiar
with the way BSCW works we just have to spend a few hours, so that one is able
to work effectively and efficiently with the system.
It will save you many frustrations later, and make BSCW an even better
tool. Some of this introduction can be done at the conference in Gävle or can
be made as part of the first lessons, in collaboration with group partners and
under the supervision of a tutor.
This
paragraph is a quotation from Wolfgang Appelt and Peter Mambrey[18]:
The BSCW Shared Workspace system is an
extension of a standard Web server through the server CGI Application
Programming Interface. A BSCW server (Web server with the BSCW extension)
manages a number of shared workspaces; i.e. repositories for shared information,
accessible to members of a group using a simple user name and password scheme.
In general, a BSCW server will manage workspaces for different groups, and users
may be members of several workspaces (e.g. one workspace corresponding to each
project a user is involved with or, in the case of teleteaching, each course
that a student has selected).
A shared workspace can contain different kinds
of information such as documents, pictures, URL links to other Web pages,
threaded discussions, member contact information and more. The contents of each
workspace are represented as information objects arranged in a folder hierarchy.
In addition to the normal download of
information from a Web site, users can also upload information from their local
file system into a BSCW workspace. For example, a teacher may upload exercises
into a workspace. Students download them onto their computers and later upload
the "homework" they were expected to perform back into a workspace for
review by the teacher. The following are the main features of the system:
·
Authentication:
People have to identify themselves by name and password before they have access
to BSCW workspaces.
·
Version
management:
Documents within a workspace can be put under version control, which is
particularly useful for joint document production.
·
Discussion
forums:
Users may start a discussion on any topic they like and the system presents the
threads in a user-friendly manner.
·
Access
rights:
The system contains a sophisticated access rights model which allows, for
example, that some users may have complete control over an object in a workspace
whereas others have only read access or no access at all.
·
Search
facilities:
Users can specify queries to find objects within BSCW workspaces based on names,
content or specific properties such as document author or document modification
date. Furthermore, queries may be submitted to Web search engines and the result
of the query can be imported into workspaces.
·
Document
format conversion:
These facilities allow users to transform a document into their format of choice,
e.g., a proprietary document format into HTML, before downloading it.
·
Interface
to synchronous communication: Through this interface users can specify synchronous sessions and
launch respective tools, e.g., audio/video conferencing software or shared
whiteboard applications.
·
Customisation:
Through user preferences the users can modify the system interface to some
extent, e.g., whether or not they want to use a JavaScript or ActiveX enhanced
interface.
·
Multi-language
support:
The interface of the system can be tailored to a particular language by
straightforward extensions. Several languages (e.g., French, Spanish, Catalan)
have been created by users of the system and are publicly available.
A co-operative system should provide awareness
information to allow users to co-ordinate their work. The event
service (activity reports) of the BSCW system is an attempt to provide users
with information on the activities of other users, with respect to the objects
within a shared workspace.
Events are triggered whenever a user performs
an action in a workspace, such as uploading a new document, downloading ('reading')
an existing document, renaming a document and so on. The system records the
events, and presents the recent events to each user. 'Recent' in this context
means events which have occurred for an object since the user last 'caught up'
action, an operation by which users can tell the system they are aware of the
events that have occurred so far and no longer wish to see them in the workspace.
Events can be caught up at different levels, from individual objects to complete
workspace folder hierarchies.
Each
event entry describes what was done, when and by whom. Although this approach
for providing group awareness is very simple, feedback from users of the BSCW
system indicates that information such as 'A uploaded a new version of document
X', or 'B has read document Y' is often very useful for group members in
co-ordinating their work and gaining an overview of what has happened since they
last logged in.
Figure
1 is an example of the user interface of the BSCW system. It shows a listing of
a folder containing three sub-folders ("bug reports", "proposals
& remarks", "software"), a link object ("Public
Server"), A MS Word document ("What's New"), an object containing
the results of a WWW query at a search engine ("Altavista Search Results"),
a meeting object ("final make (beta)") and a discussion object ("What
do you think about..."). The icon in front of each object's name indicates
the type of the object. Behind each object is the name of the person who created
the object and the date when it was created or most recently modified.
At
the top of the screen there are buttons for triggering operations such as "Add
Member" to provide access to this folder to other persons, or "Add
Document", "Add Folder", "Add URL", etc., to create new
objects within the folder. Other actions such as "Catch up", "Copy"
or "Archive" can be applied to objects which have been marked through
the tick boxes in front of each objects' name. Further action buttons appear in
a line below each object (e.g., "Modify", "Replace", "Convert",
"Edit Query", or "Reply") since they are only applicable to
one particular object.
Behind three objects ("proposals &
remarks", "software", "What do you think about...")
there are so-called event icons which indicate that an event occurred, e.g., the
"What do you think about..." discussion object is new since user
"elke" visited this folder the last time and there have been
modifications within the folders "proposals & remarks" and
"software". Clicking on these event icons would give more details
about the event, e.g., which user(s) triggered these events.
Today most people in the educational community
are familiar with the use of email. Why don’t we use email to send messages to
our collaborative partners? There are situations we must
use email. Since email has become very common, most of the people familiar with
email read their mail every day. They don’t have to log in to some specific
host, they just turn on their computer. Because of that, it is justified to say
that email is a medium that allows
“pushing” information instead of the predominantly “pulling” function/principle
of the web. With email, we can make sure that we reach the students immediately,
and vice versa.
The advantage of BSCW, however, is that the
information is structured in a way we
find comfortable, in addition to all the other functionality of BSCW.
In this course we have decided to implement
two synchronous tools. It is a fact however, that synchronous distance
interaction reduces the potential openness and flexibility of distance education,
by insisting that student is in a certain place at a certain time. Nevertheless,
as mentioned in the introduction, by addressing different aspects of
communication (by using different tools), we may obtain a more total
communication and learning environment, with better learning as a result.
“Facilitating attendance at meetings is one
of the simplest yet most popular uses of video conferencing. For meetings that
already regularly take place and require face-to-face communication, video
conferencing can substitute for the actual physical presence of remote
participants. This reduces travel costs as well as travel time and makes meeting
attendance more convenient, and more likely to occur. Meetings that may
otherwise not have been scheduled due to travel costs and time are also enabled
via video conferencing. More frequent, short, often informal meetings can
enhance the sense of teamwork across groups who are working on the same project.
Video conferencing assists with this by providing remote participants with much
of the face-to-face familiarity that comes with physical presence, including the
subtle but rich elements of facial expression, body language, and eye contact.”[19]
When thinking about videoconferences, we
usually think of group-to-group meeting or one-to-group meeting. In one-to-one
meeting, computer based applications may often be more practical, as discussed
in chapter 4.2.
In videoconferences, the quality of the audio
and video are critical to the success of the participation. If these factors
function sufficiently, the participants may feel the conference like a
“real” meeting, like all the people are sitting in the same room. It is
however important to realise that the virtual character of the meeting demands
certain kinds of behaviour from the participants. It is important to be aware of
what we are doing in relation to the microphone and camera, and who is leading
the meeting or “has the floor” at any given time. Some useful advice about
how to behave is given in the Videoconference
Protocols[20].
We have in our project group experienced
videoconference with the equipment connected through ISDN lines. This technology
is easy to use, we just dial up the actual phone number, and the video quality
is good if a sufficient number of ISDN lines are used.
A drawback is expensive open telephone lines, if the conference lasts for
a while. Equipment of good quality is also expensive, and not all institutions
in higher education have this opportunity to hold virtual meetings.
A videoconference of this kind is more or less
limited to the transmission of video and audio. Advanced equipment has in
addition the opportunity to show documents on the screen. To go a step further,
to be able to “real” collaboration at a distance, with sharing and
exchanging of documents, text-based chatting a/o., in addition to the video and
audio facility, we will in the next paragraph discuss a computer based,
synchronous communication tool.
Microsoft NetMeeting is one of many clients
based on the so-called H.323 protocol[21].
Microsoft NetMeeting was chosen because it is
a natural part of the Windows system, it is free, and is characterised as
“probably the best known and most widely implemented H.323 client” (Robert
Jackson, University of Tennessee). One of the early versions, NetMeeting2.0, was
in Network Computing, November 1997
prophesised “We suspect that NetMeeting is going to be the way to go for
collaboration, so expect many vendors to follow suit”. A recent review of
Microsoft NetMeeting 3.01 is given by Alfred Poor in the PC Magazine, March 31st 2000 (rated 4 of 5 points):
“NetMeeting
comes with Windows 98 and 2000. It is bundled with many cameras, and you can
download it free from the Microsoft Web site. For an easy installation,
NetMeeting has a wizard to help adjust your audio settings. The application's
interface consists of a small window showing the incoming video image during a
call—or your own local image if you haven't yet connected. To place calls, you
can enter a TCP/IP address or use entries from your Windows Address Book,
Microsoft or third-party directories on the Internet, or a list of people who
have called you.
NetMeeting assigns separate windows to
different tasks: text-chatting, sending images, and using the whiteboard, to
name a few. You have many windows to manage, but when you're not using the extra
features, the main interface is quite clean.
NetMeeting supports the T-126[22]
standard, so its whiteboard can work with other compliant videoconferencing
applications. Other collaboration features let participants share control of a
program running from one connected computer regardless of their location. This
power can give callers access to remote systems' programs—handy for technical
support or dialling into your office computer from home. NetMeeting also lets
you transfer files to some or all participants in a conference.
Remote
access requires security, so NetMeeting encrypts transferred data but not audio
or video streams. The program also has user authentication and
password-protection features.
NetMeeting is designed to make the most of
available bandwidth. The audio stream is given priority, and the video stream is
adjusted to fit the remaining bandwidth. Only those parts of the frame that
actually change are updated. An entire new frame is sent every 15 seconds to
clean up any scrambled images.”
If we don’t have a video camera and/or
microphone installed, NetMeeting can still be used for sharing whiteboards, chat,
transfer files and sharing applications. You will then not see or hear your
collaborative partners, but nevertheless have the feeling of communicating
synchronously. In fact, if NetMeeting is used in a many-to-many meeting, the
video- and sound facility can be rather confusing, as this functionality is
based on a one-to-one communication. NetMeeting used in a setting like that is
firstly a tool for collaborating with documents and applications over the
network.
[1]
In
the course of the project Finland was added to this list.
[2]
Another term that is also used is: Universities of Professional Education.
[3]
Report DUSC conference 7 and 8 October 1999.
Oslo College Norway
[4]
The participants of the Clide group were: Sija Geers (initiator and
coordinator), Hogeschool Haarlem, Netherlands, Leif Erik Otterå and Ida
Knudsen (Høgskolen i Bergen, Norway) and Anja Stofberg, Hogeschool
Rotterdam, NL .
[5]
Van Til, C., & Van der Heijden, F. (1998). PBL
Study Skills: an overview. Maastricht: Datawyse Universitaire Pers
[6]
Appelt, W. & Mambrey, P.
(1999). Experiences with the BSCW Shared Workspace System as
the Backbone of a Virtual Learning Environment for Students. http://bscw.gmd.de/Papers/EDMEDIA99/index.html GMD - German National Research Center for Information
Technology
[8]
These
figures shows how the BSCW interface look like after September 15th
2001 (see http://bscw.gmd.de/
). The interface was a bit different when we actually performed this project.
[9]
South-eastern
Universities Research Association (SURA) “Video Development Initiative”
(http://sunsite.utk.edu/video_cookbook/
)
[10]
From Ministry of Education, British Columbia (http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/vidcon/protocol.htm
)
[11]
H.323
is a protocol, which supports synchronous communication over the Internet
[12]
Actually this was in stark contrast to the participants in our test group
who had decided to take part in the experimental project group without any
facilities whatsoever.
[13]
To be precise: Radiotherapy, Mathematics, Social and Cultural Education and
Teacher Training College for primary education.
[14]
These
4 themes were: A. The concept of collaborative learning, B. The requirements of the digital learning environment, C.
The practical experience and D. Critical success factors.
[15]
This can be found at: http://bscw.gmd.de
[16] Dillenbourg, P., M. , Blaye, A. & O’Malley, C. (1996) The Evolution of Research on Collaborative Learning. In: H. Spada and P. Reimann (Eds) Learning in Humans and Machines. Elsevier
[17]
C. J.
Bonk et. al.: A Ten Level Web
Integration Continuum for Higher Education: New Resources, Partners, Courses,
and Markets (http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk/paper/edmdia99.html
)
[18]
Wolfgang
Appelt and Peter Mambrey: Experiences
with the BSCW Shared Workspace System as the Backbone of a Virtual Learning
Environment for Students, a paper presented at the EDMEDIA99 conference
in Seattle, USA, June 1999 (http://bscw.gmd.de/Papers/EDMEDIA99/index.html
)
[19]
Southeastern
Universities Research Association (SURA) Video Development Initiative (http://sunsite.utk.edu/video_cookbook/
)
[20] from Ministry of Education, British Columbia (http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/vidcon/protocol.htm )
[21]
H.323 is a protocol, which supports synchronous communication over the
Internet.
[22]
T-126
is an international recommendation describing Still Image [Conferencing]
Protocol Specification
