A comparison of two A comparison of two methods of methods of synchronous (real synchronous (real time) interaction in time) interaction in distance learningdistance learning

Jane Montague

University of Derby

J.Montague@derby.ac.uk

IntroductionIntroduction

Supporting students in different contexts

Background to first study Background to second

study Research questions Summary

Supporting studentsSupporting students

Two studies explore synchronous support for students: telephone tutorial conferences (TTCs) for distance learning and ‘chats’ using an online instant messaging forum for e-learning

Preliminary insights from the research have shed light on structure, tutor role, student identities etc. (Horton-Salway et al. 2008)

Background to studiesBackground to studiesIn face-to-face teaching contexts students

are supported through a mix of methods, whereas in a distance learning or e-learning context students are typically ‘on their own’ for much of the time

The growth of a range of communication formats means contact with students is now much easier (e.g. Paulus, 2007)

Little comparison between different methods of ‘conversational’ support in contexts such as those considered here

Study 1Study 1First study: telephone tutorial conferences

offered to students on a postgraduate course in a distance learning context

Typically involved approximately six students and lasted for an hour

Structured around an agenda which students may or may not have received prior to the interaction, which meant that almost every interaction followed a similar pattern

Study 1Study 1 The ‘typical’ format of a TTC from this corpus

(Horton-Salway, Wiggins, Montague and Seymour-Smith, 2008) includes:

introduction and settling in periodagenda setting sequence‘tutorial proper’ (Benwell and Stokoe,

2002)closing down sequence

These four steps can be tracked in a similar way through all of our TTCs except one: disruption through tutor not joining first

Study 2Study 2Second study aimed to adopt a similar

supportive ‘tutor role’ as is offered through TTCs and face-to-face sessions

As it was aimed at an e-learning context an online messaging tool was employed: MSN Messenger – a chat facility provided by Microsoft

People can message each other synchronously producing a written version of a conversation

Messenger windowMessenger window

Study 2Study 2 Students involved are familiar with, and

contribute to, a variety of interactive tasks as part of their online undergraduate degree

They also participate in an asynchronous discussion forum as part of their degree as well as communicating with lecturers via email

Based on findings from the first study it was anticipated that being able to talk together with a lecturer in real time would positively enhance students’ ongoing discussions

Study 2Study 2 Chats were time-constrained (in the same way

as the TTCs and face to face meetings), usually lasting for about an hour

Students were not penalised if they chose not to take part and any discussions were summarised and posted on the discussion forum for access by all

The chats were set up in such a way as to be student rather than tutor led and the agenda was decided through discussion by the students on the discussion forum

Research questionsResearch questionsDo students engage differently in a

tutorial chat forum than they do in a telephone tutorial conference setting?

What are the advantages/ disadvantages of using one or the other?

What (if anything) does participating in a synchronous chat add to students’ ongoing asynchronous discussions?

Research question 1: Do students engage differently in

a tutorial chat forum than they do in a telephone tutorial conference setting?

Structural similarity Structural similarity One notable similarity between the MSN format

and the TTCs can be observed through close exploration of the overall progression of the chat:

–Settling in – introductions, small talk and so on

–Tutorial task – focus turns to the purpose of the chat

–Closing – goodbyes and arrangements for next interaction

This echoes the structure of the TTCs and also of face-to-face interactions

Interactional complexityInteractional complexity One notable difference between the two is that

the already complex process of conversing is even more intricate on MSN

All of the interaction is accessible to all participants throughout the chat so that previous points can be re-read while the chat continues

This leads to students returning at times to previous points while the current conversational topic can be concurrently pursued

Several conversations may be taking place at any one time

Research question 2: What are the advantages/

disadvantages of using one or the other?

The convenience of e-The convenience of e-supportsupport One advantage of using the TTC was that

students are more familiar with conversing by telephone – they seemed more willing to ‘sign up’

However… The advantage of using the chat forum was that

students found it easier to leave if necessary and could easily rejoin the conversation with little disruption to the other participants

Students also found it more convenient when located in different geographical regions – it was less disruptive than having to take part in a conversation in the middle of the night where other people may be disturbed

Research question 3:What (if anything) does

participating in a synchronous chat add to students’ ongoing asynchronous discussions?

Student feedback Student feedback Initial feedback has been extremely positive

in relation to the support that the synchronous communications have contributed:– Students feel part of a ‘community’– Students can have questions answered

immediately– Students can clarify points not sure about– Students are reassured that others are at

similar stages as them, adding to satisfaction with course materials

Reflective comment Reflective comment In relation to my own experience as a

lecturer in an e-learning context:– More confidence that students understood

what I was telling them– A better understanding of the students’

learning experience (not only in relation to my own modules)

– More rewarding ‘relationship’ with the students

– Continuous feedback means student needs can be identified and suitable materials designed

Summary Summary Supporting distance learning students is the focus

of the two studies reported here – both of which are ongoing and developing in other ways

Analysis of the Messenger chats has highlighted interesting issues around the complexity of textual interaction in this setting

Preliminary student evaluations have highlighted the positive aspects of both methods

Analysis is continuing and evaluative comments from students is informing the development and further application of the chat sessions

ReferencesReferences Benwell, B. and Stokoe, E. (2002). Constructing

discussion tasks in university tutorials: Shifting dynamics and identities. Discourse Studies, 37, 1: 1-23.

Horton-Salway, M., Wiggins, S., Montague, J. and Seymour-Smith, S. (2008). Mapping the components of the telephone conference: An analysis of tutorial talk at a distance learning institution. Discourse Studies (In press).

Paulus, T.M. (2007). CMC Modes for Learning Tasks at a Distance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1322-1345.