Transcript NERA-AO-AM-final

Online Communication in
University Education in Iceland
Anna Ólafsdóttir
Project Manager
Distance Education
University of Akureyri
Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
Assistant Professor
Reykjavik University
Overview



Focus will be on ICT and online communication
Research from 2002
 Teachers and students
 Results
Discussion
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
2
Research


The research which is described here is a part of a 3-year
project which started in the autumn 2002
 The title of the project is LearnICT – using ICT in
learning and teaching
 Partly funded by the Icelandic Centre for Research
(RANNIS)
 The main goal of the LearnICT project is to examine the
influence of ICT on teaching and learning at all levels of
the school system
We will be focusing on higher education
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
3
Students
Research


In the autumn 2002 in 3 universties
Student main results

Students responce rate was 46%
- Females 75%, males 25%
- In the higher education system the
propostion is females 71%, males 29%
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
4
Students
Student use of online communication
Once a week or more
32%
Online discussion
Online chat
49%
E-mail
96%
0%
20%
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
5
Students
Student use of online communication
Once a week or more
Send the teacher request via e-mail
21%
Hand in project to the teacher
23%
Find study material for online web discussion
24%
Communicate with fellow students via e-mail
66%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
6
Students
Student attitudes
90%
80%
70%
60%
77%
59%
50%
40%
28%
30%
17%
20%
13%
6%
10%
0%
Very well or
well
Discussion in class
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
Fairly
Very poorly or
poorly
Online discussion
7
Students
Attitudes to online communication
Totally agree and agree
92%
It is usful to use e-mail for learning
It is important to meet teachers face-to face
88%
It is important to meet other students faceto -face
87%
Online communication with other students
supports my study
82%
Online communication with the teacher
supports my study
70%
0%
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
20%
40%
60%
80% 100%
8
Teachers
Teacher main results

Teachers responce rate was 59%
- Females 49%, males 51%
- For the higher education system the
percentage is females 46%, males 54%
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
9
Teachers
Use of e-mail for preparing teaching
50%
45%
45%
41%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
14%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Always or often
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
Some times
Rarely or never
10
Teachers
E-mail communication with the students
50%
40%
43%
38%
30%
30%
23%
24%
27%
20%
8% 8%
10%
0%
2-3 times a
week or more
Every week
2-3 times a
month
Never
Communication with the student group
Communication with the student personally
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
11
Teachers
Attitudes to online communication
(agree and totally agree)
Communication is important for
supporting the students
91%
84%
It is useful to use e-mail in the teaching
Communication with fellow teachers
makes my work more easy
79%
It is useful to use online discussion in the
teaching
62%
0%
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
12
Communication with the help of
technology

Can give the students a new feeling of freedom


Can also distract from the discussion



They can communicate and answer questions wherever
They are and whenever they want
Attendance can be poor or late
Spontanity in answering and brainstorming may be lost
The student can make use of the personal
anonymity the web offers but the quality of the
communication depends on the organization and
the tools used as well as the role of the students
and the teachers
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
13
Illustrative explanation
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
14
Online quiz
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
15
Quiz from WebCT
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
16
Online discussion
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
17
Information on the Internet
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
18
Information and exercises
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
19
Online database
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
20
MSN
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
21
Online- Communication...What for?



Can serve as an effective tool to increase student
activity in courses
Strengthens collaborative work amongst the
students and encourages critical reflection
through various forms of interaction amongst
teachers, learners and content
Online communication as an assessment tool
offers many opportunities for peer-evaluation
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
22
Online Discussion – cont.

Effective way to promote deep-learning
(Entwistle, 2001)

Main strengths or advantages:
- More time for reflective thinking than in real-time
discussions
- The fact that students have to put their thoughts into
written words often broadens and deepens the
discussions
- Some students are less shy when expressing their
thoughts and opinions in web-discussion than in
classroom discussion
- Powerful tool for evaluation work, especially to
involve students in the assessment
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
23
Online- discussion – cont.

Can be of various forms:
 Formal, topic centered, graded
 Informal – voluntary, open one-to-one
discussions
 Whatever form is used it is necessary to
integrate online- discussion into the learning
experience if it is to become a useful tool in the
study (Wallace, 2001)
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
24
Online Chat


Most VLE platforms have inbuilt chat-facilities
A lot of free chat-facilities on the Internet (e.g.
MSN)



Can be used for teacher-student meetings, one on one
or for meetings with student-groups e.g. in project-work
Can also be used in student-groups for the same
purpose without the teacher being involved
Teacher can be online for students on MSN during office
hours
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
25
Online chat – cont.

Advantages



Useful tool in building up a class-culture within
the student group, especially important when it
comes to distance education students
reduces the risk of distance-education students
feeling alone and isolated in their study
Disadvantages

Students sometimes tend to use online-chat
meeting with the teacher as a kind of FAQ – hour,
can turn into a rather chaotic, frustrating event
when many students attend the meeting (Gunn and
Barnett, 2001)
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
26
Conclusion




For the generation now knocking on the door of the university
online communication is just a part of everyday life
Challenging task for policy makers having totally different
technological background to understand their needs
The Internet-generation:
- Has been living with computers and the Internet all their
lives
- Technology has played a vital role in their study,
communication and hobbies
- Expect to see the possibilities technology offers being
used in the utmost sense (Nasseh, 2000)
Is the university fully prepared to meet the demands of this
generation?
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
27
References
Entwistle, Noel, 2001. Promoting Deep Learning Through Teaching and Assessment. In
Linda Suskie (Editor), Assessment to Promote Deep Learning (p. 9-20). Washington
DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Gunn, Cathy and Barnett, John (2001). Online learning: a quality experience. In Peter
Roberts og Mark Chambers (Editors), Digital Developments in Higher Education Theory and Practice (p. 139-160). Cambridge: Taylor Graham Publishing.
Nasseh, Bizhan (2000). Forces of Change: The Emergence of a Knowledge Society and
New Generations of Learners. In Lisa Ann Petrides (Editor), Case Studies on
Information Technology in Higher Education: Implications for Policy and Practice (p.
217-227). London: Idea Group Publishing.
Wallace, Lori (2001). Do Students really want to Interact? In David Murphy, Rob Walker og
Graham Webb (Editors), Online Learning and Teaching with Technology: Case
Studies, Experience and Practice (p. 21-27). London: Kogan Page Limited.
Anna Ólafsdóttir and Ásrún Matthíasdóttir
28