Democracy in Computer—Mediated Communications

This inquiry seeks to reveal the democratic actions of graduate students at the University of Wisconsin—Madison during the course of CAVE 641—The Adult Learner. Their stories are told primarily through the textual interactions that took place in various conferences that made up the FirstClass mediated educational environment. These interactions have been captured into a database and organized in various manners to give perspectives on the participants’ initial feelings towards computer conferencing, their acquisition of a facility in the medium, and, finally, evidences of democratic action that resulted. It is my conviction that these actions are best understood in the words and interactions of the participants themselves. All of the participants’ messages are presented in the form in which they were originally posted; text formatting and spelling errors were not corrected. The participants’ names were disguised to the extent that only their first names were used. Permission was granted by all members of CAVE 641 to use their postings in this study.

Data also was drawn from pre—course questionnaires that were sent to each participant prior to the beginning of the semester in which CAVE 641 took place (Appendix A). These data were used to help determine the attitudes and expectations present as to the conduct of a computer—mediated course prior to the students’ initial experience. Both technical expectations and the anticipation of pedagogical differences versus conventional classroom conduct were measured. The experience of the first meeting, the September 9, 1995 face-to-face class, was also used to reinforce the findings from the questionnaire.

As has been discussed, this inquiry is based upon theories of education that call for greater democratic involvement by its participants (Dewey, 1916; Gutmann, 1987; Warehime, 1993). These authors’ ideas are given further shape by the renewed interest evident in literature regarding constructivist theories of learning, especially regarding the importance of narrative in educational action (Bruner, 1990; Bruner, 1996; Jonassen et al., 1995; Vygotsky, 1962). This inquiry is based upon the idea that a democratic environment fosters deep, constructive learning through a more involved and committed student population, a conviction that is of the utmost importance to the significance of my study.

Data will be organized by headings drawn from the focus questions that guided me through the interpretation of these data:

1) Technical Barriers: How did students in CAVE 641 approach a new educational environment like CMC? What expectations were present as to the conduct of a computer—mediated course of study?

2) The Development of Mastery: To what extent did the medium control and dominate educational interaction in CAVE 641? Was there a point in time when the participants developed a fluency with the medium of CMC?

3) Democratic action: To what extent was autonomous action undertaken by the student participants in CAVE 641? What resistance was there to such responsibility?

This study consists largely of an analysis of computer conferencing messages posted by graduate students enrolled in CAVE 641 at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, with supplemental data from questionnaires completed prior to the semester. The shape of the analysis took form through readings of these data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This kind of content analysis is relatively new in researching computer conferencing. Most previous studies relied more upon statistical examination of quantitative data such as number of messages posted and amount of time spent online (Burge, 1994). In seeking instances of democratic action this study must go beyond objective knowledge and examine the experiences of the students themselves. Statistical data will be used in a supplemental role only.

Database software was invaluable to the latter stage of this study. Once messages were downloaded from the FirstClass server and entered into the database, I was able to view the data from a number of perspectives and begin to keep track of the tendencies as they became apparent. Data was organized and read chronologically, by conference, or by thread, mirroring the different manners in which the students experienced the class. Of great use was the Filemaker Pro software itself, which allowed for easy addition of database fields while reading, giving me the option to create new thematic codes as they became apparent.

In the following pages I will present the data as it has been connected with the three focus questions that drive this study. Each question was further divided by the data into several themes which emerged as factors of the larger question.

From the initial course description regarding CAVE 641 students were aware that the course would be offered entirely using computer—mediated communications, a priority reinforced in the course syllabus (Appendix B). The exact nature of the process was not succinctly outlined, but the fact that all interactions would be outside of the traditional classroom was made evident. As a general teaching guide, Drs. Hayes and Gibson developed a cover letter and questionnaire that was mailed to each enrolled student (Appendix A). Though many of the questions did not ask specifically about computer conferencing, the respondents took the initiative to comment on their hopes and fears about CMC. I will first present the general tone of these responses, then look at the experience of the one face—to—face class meeting on September 9, 1995 that served in part as a training session for the FirstClass software.

In seeking to determine how students of CAVE 641 approached computer—mediated communication, I first began with an analysis of responses given to questionnaires either completed before the initial class meeting, or filled out at the September 9, 1995 class meeting (Appendix A). Students were asked to fill in open—ended questions regarding the course in general and their technological experience in particular. Completed questionnaires were received from all nineteen students that completed the entire semester with the class. Two additional questionnaires were completed by students who subsequently dropped the course; these were disregarded in this study.

Students showed both excitement and trepidation about the online nature of the course. Questions about the course in general often led to comments about CMC and hinted at past, often disagreeable, experiences. Some respondents hoped for a positive and growing experience in computer conferencing, but many hinted at unpleasant possibilities. These responses thus generally show a concentration on the potential problems of computer—mediated communications rather than any expectation of a more democratic learning environment.

From the questionnaire I focused on four questions. Two sought to measure the students attitudes regarding the course in general, asking both what they hoped would happen and what they hoped would not happen. One question inquired about the students experiences in distance or autonomous learning, and the final question sought to measure the students experience with electronic mail. The answers will begin to give a picture of the students entering the CMC environment.

All nineteen students responded in some way to this question. Though the question did not mention computer—mediated communications specifically, ten of the nineteen respondents commented on their hopes regarding the new medium. Some reported interest in learning how CMC would increase their own learning potential:

One respondent anticipated the potential for democratic action in computer conferencing:

In her response KimMarie anticipates the possibility of community—building in CMC, as well as the need for the instructors to have a re—configured and more collegial role in the class.

Other responses to the positively worded first question anticipated the fears of many users that were developed in the next, more negative question:

This question was taken by many as an invitation to express fears about computer conferencing. In the following responses one can detect echoes of past frustrations in attempting to communicate online and/or participate in an innovative educational environment. Eighteen of the respondents answered the question regarding their apprehensions about the class. Of these, all but four mentioned a fear directly related to the use of CMC.

Some of the computer related fears revolved around difficulties with making the computer conferencing software work. Eight mentioned factors that were directly related to the reliability of computers and/or difficulties getting them to work correctly. The importance of these comments about technical difficulties show an anticipation of how classroom action can be interrupted by "computer glitches."

Six other respondents went beyond issues of a technical nature and expressed their feelings about being separated over distance and time. Many of these concerns seemed to come from earlier experiences that were less than successful.

Of the respondents to the questionnaire, only three reported any previous experience with CMC courses. Six students reported at least some experience with video teleconferencing, either as students in single courses or as facilitators for educational delivery using this medium.

Nine students reported having some kind of course work or learning experience that qualified as self—directed. Some recounted experiences with correspondence courses; James reported completing his MBA by mail while overseas. Others felt that time spent keeping current in their field was an example of self—directed learning. Academic reading also was seen as qualifying as self—directed. Six students reported no experience with self—directed learning.

All but two respondents reported having had some sort of email experience, with the majority indicating a comfort level with sending and retrieving messages. Some, however, were either complete novices or reported some lack of ease with telecommunications.

From the responses to the questionnaire I was able to begin to construct a picture of the students in CAVE 641. A significant number of the students were somewhat fearful, even fatalistic, about problems that may occur through the use of computer—mediated communications. Whether mentioning a fear of ‘glitches’ or being concerned about finding community in a faceless classroom, students dreaded being part of yet another failed educational experiment. Few speculated about the beneficial possibilities of CMC.

Also, the class reported only a moderate amount of experience with any sort of distance education. Though many described themselves as being self—directed, there was little actual experience with a full semester distance education course. Many of those who did report experience with video teleconferencing seemed to be reporting of isolated instances rather than extended learning experiences. Also, few reported any great knowledge or comfort with electronic mail.

From these questionnaires Dr. Hayes, Dr. Gibson, and I concluded that our class was in need of a great deal of training and encouragement. To this end we designed a four hour face to face class meeting that would be used to introduce the course material and allow for students to get to know one another. After introductions and a description of the course, it was decided that the remaining time, about two hours, would be devoted to getting the students acquainted with the FirstClass software. Hildy Feen, of the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, was asked to conduct a training session both due to her expertise with the software and to reinforce to the students that DoIT was a source of aid if there were software problems. Thus, the initial meeting consisted of a two hour discussion of the course and its goals, which was followed by a trip to the computer laboratory where each student was to have a direct experience with FirstClass. It was our goal that every student would be able to install the software on their home computers and would know the basic commands for participating in computer conferencing.

The initial session was useful in giving everyone a chance to have actual experience using the software. Once Ms. Feen demonstrated the basic commands of FirstClass, the students were paired off on computers to explore for themselves. I had created a special conference for this day called "Practice," and helped the students find the conference for their first efforts. Some of the initial work was typically informal and perhaps even comical:

PITHY THOUGHT: EPITHANY

mark, that's a lot of bull

ROB,

THERE'S A LOT MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM!

reply

Not Bull, Pig

While this is hardly a serious exchange, it is an example of the kind of informality that we were stressing in the first session. We endeavored to create a comfortable atmosphere in which to learn the very important skill of participating in a thread. This would be crucial in conducting conversations throughout the semester. Though the session ended well enough, there were still occasional comments that reflected a fear that the class would fail due to computer problems. As the technical support person for the immediate class, I figured this would lead to a number of help requests early in the semester.

Most participants concentrated on issues involved with the successful use of the technology. Some were excited about trying a class taught using CMC, but most expressed some fear that technical "glitches" would interfere with and/or dominate the conduct of the course. Few students had participated in classes or distance education using computer conferencing, through most possessed some Internet experience. As was noted, only KimMarie seemed to be aware of a democratic potential in the use of CMC.

Overall, there seemed to be a wary interest about the class and how it would turn out. Many of these concerns were based upon the technology, especially those aspects that involved technologies the participants were not sure of. Others were more worried about successful communication in a text—based environment; would the class be able to thrive in such a ‘sterile’ environment. I felt that before democratic action could develop, students would have to master the medium to the degree that it would become secondary to the conduct of interaction between themselves and other course participants. It is to the process of mastery that I now turn, reporting both the barriers to communication through the medium and evidences of how the students attained a degree of mastery.

The Development of Mastery

Action in a democratic medium places a large degree of responsibility upon each participant. In order to act responsibly, one needs foremost to be able to communicate with one another. Because of the need of facile communication I found significant the student’s struggles in learning to use the computer conferencing, both the FirstClass software and the larger needs of the medium itself. The interjection of the medium’s requirements between the speaker and the message could cause it to become the focus of students work rather than allowing the free flow of educational discourse (Polanyi, 1974/1958). I have divided the findings of this section into two parts; issues involving the technology itself, and issues that are more related to how well students adapted to communicating in the learning environment. In both cases, I was looking for evidence that participants were developing a fluency in the medium of CMC that would allow democratic action to emerge.

Though most of the basic functions of FirstClass were reasonably well mastered in the initial Saturday meeting, there were inevitable problems that arose, especially towards the beginning of the semester. In order to give students a place to turn for assistance I created the (humorously) titled "H E L P ! ! ! !" conference as a place for questions to be addressed. Of course, it was assumed that individuals were at least able to log onto the system and were skilled enough to get to the conference and post a message. A moderate amount of telephone support was given to those in need of quick "refreshers" about the workings of FirstClass, or assistance in installation on (largely) Windows—based computers. Beyond these basic needs, technical problems most usually involved the transfer of files, occasional server malfunctions, and the ability to actually log onto the computer.

This category was used to mark messages that reported general problems with using the FirstClass software. Problems of file manipulation or unexplainable occurrences fell into this category.

File transfer is one of the most highly touted assets of computer conferencing. It allows for the exchange of whole papers between participants and thus enable an even deeper level of interaction. An early assignment in CAVE 641 was for each student to write a "learners biography" and post it in a designated folder. These papers would act as an introduction to fellow students and hopefully would give some insight into their learning styles. In FirstClass it is a relatively easy procedure to attach a file for others to download; the difficulty often came in finding a way to open the file on the individual’s home computer. Generally, a participant would create the biography using their local word processing software. It had been explained at the initial class meeting that just posting such a file would be problematic, as it would depend on one’s word processor being able to translate files from another word processor. A decision was made that all posted files should be in ASCII text format, a lowest common denominator that would ensure everyone could read these documents. Still, some posted documents formatted for a specific word processor (one even using Wordstar, an ancient program), and to facilitate transfer I often had to use my large suite of format translators to convert the files to text. We were also surprised and frustrated to find out that even some ASCII text files were not easily transferred between Macintosh and DOS—compatible computers.

The following example of difficulty transferring files also gives an insight into the emotions attendant with having something posted but not accessible. "NOTE 1" is a file that was attached to a message in the Reflections folder, and though it was possible to download the attachment, many word processors were unable to translate it. The following exchange reflects the frustration that attends not being able to read a class posting; Vickie is "dying to know" the contents of the note.

John I attempted to "download" the NOTE 1 entry on both my hard drive (C) and a disc (A); when I opened my word processor file to read the NOTE 1 file nothing labeled that was there. I have Microsoft Works as my program. Any clues in what to do next? I also tried holding down the shift ket and double clicking but that didn't work either. UGH!! I am dying to know what is on NOTE 1...

Hi Vicki,

Machelle will need to tell us exactly what format she send NOTE1 in. I had the same trouble reading it you did, although I have a suit of file translaters that eventually decoded it. I'll drop Machelle a line.

BTW, NOTE1 just contains some text that she later put into a message, so you're not missing anything. But isn't the fear of missing something strong online?

**John

you bet your sweet bippie!!!

Early in the semester problems such as these were common, and eventually a style was developed that circumvented the problem of file transfer. Students were encouraged to write their long assignments using a word processor, then cut and paste that text directly into a FirstClass message and send it to the desired conference. While hardly an elegant solution to the problem of file transfer between computer systems, it did allow all to easily read each others’ work.

Many of the fears about computer conferencing in the initial meetings revolved around computer problems, often referred to as computer "glitches." The following exchange was prompted by a missing message posted by Thomas. I, as the support person, assumed that Thomas had made some sort of error, probably not addressing his message correctly. In FirstClass, a message is automatically addressed to a conference if it is created while that conference is active. Here I assumed that Thomas was not in the South conference, and therefore his message was posted in some other part of the class conference.

John-

Yesterday I made comments for my group in the south folder. That is I opened a "new message" and hit send when complete. The message is not in the folder today. I also notice that a lot of my messages end up in the mailbox. Why is this?

Tom

Tom: The next time you create a new message for posting in the South group, take a look at the To: line in the address area. It should say South. A new message is sent to the folder that is active; this means that the window topmost on your screen will receive the message.

A copy of all messages sent end up in the mailbox automatically. Technically, a message posted to a conference is an email to FC, so it saves a copy for you. You can delete them if you like.

**John

Shortly thereafter, KimMarie posted a message reporting a similar problem. Because of the common nature of her problem I began to suspect a "glitch" and forwarded the complaint on to the system administrator at DoIT. The administrator confirmed that indeed messages were lost due to computer server error.

I was wondering what happened to yesterday's stuff? That is 9/25. I posted a couple of messages, including a help query. None of it shows up today.

Thanks. KimMarie

KimMarie,

I've forwarded your question to Hildy, the administrator. I have no idea what happened, save that there's been some backup problems.

**John

For those who lost postings on the 25th, here's why. This is an email I just received from our FC administrator:

**********quote**********

Conference Owners,

This is to notify you of a problem that occurred the evening of 9/25 due to a backup glitch. The problem has been identified, a call has been opened with DoIT's Help Desk, and the technologist is taking steps to insure that this does not happen again.

On 9/26 it was brought to my attention by a conference owner that the postings, messages, and discussions that took place in his conference on 9/25 were not there on 9/26.

I wanted to bring this to your attention in case you noticed or your students reported some items missing. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you...

This was one of the few instances of actual computer/server malfunctions during the conduct of the class. It was most telling to me that I assumed at first the student was in error, even though I really did not know that for sure. I instead made up a scenario in which Thomas could have made the mistake, and though plausible it certainly was not the only option.

The loss of work due to computer crashes and other malfunctions were an occasional part of the conduct of the course. Again, this served as the source of a great deal of frustration, especially when one had spent a sizable amount of time composing a message in FirstClass only to have some sort of crash which resulted in the loss of all the work. As a solution to this problem I suggested that students write "off line" on their word processors and cut and paste the text into a FirstClass message. My solution resulted in less loss of files, but interrupted the flow of a virtual discussion. Most students preferred to reply to others messages while logged into the system while the train of the thread was fresh in their minds. Though actual instances of server malfunction were few, there were enough problems to create a distrust for FirstClass in some of the participants.

Affecting mastery, certainly, were the persistent problems encountered logging into the system. Often, students were unable to make a connection when dialing into the DoIT server via modem between the hours of 5:00 PM and 12:00 AM on weekdays, a problem consistently reported throughout the course. The University had recently offered full Internet accounts to all enrolled students, and the resulting load had reached its zenith during the semester in which this class took place (Appendix D). The results of this overload were frequent busy signals from overloaded telephone lines, and participants often spent considerable amounts of time re—dialing until they could finally access the server.

Hello North -

Sorry I haven't been in earlier. I was out of town a few days, then had problems logging on to the server. This is only my second successful attempt at logging on in ten tries over three days. :(

and...

I know we have had a difficult time coming together so far, not to mention just getting on line. (my sympathy is with all of you). My only difficulty is finding the right time to get in the computer lab (when there aren't long lines).

and...

About chatting, it's hard for me to get into the system. In fact I've tried for two days. Prime time is 6-11 and the system seems to be on overload. Maybe we can chat early on Saturday morning or at some point over the week-ends after the assignments are put on the system on Friday night??????

and...

Yikes, viewing the notes in the main screen, it might have something to do with the difficultly of logging on. Last Tuesday night, for example, it took me 15 tries to log on. When I finally got connected, the server was so sluggish I had to close out and reconnect.

It's like trying to dance to a band that starts and stops. You can't keep a decent rhythm.

This problem logging in persisted throughout the semester, and was a prominent feature in many students reflections on taking the course.

I didn't have the early technical difficulties of some, so was pretty positive about the medium.

Later, however, logging in became a chore--it influenced when I commented and how I did. The context became a factor, almost another participant; I noticed my response to it, and wondered about others.

These difficulties were significant in that they rendered many of the communicative features available in FirstClass unusable. For instance, synchronous conversation a highly unreliable proposition. While certain groups such as West were interested in scheduling these sessions, they were not able to do so because of the inability of all group members to log into the DoIT server at the same time. Those chats that did take place were conducted in an impromptu manner, usually the result of checking who was logged into the system and then inviting that person to a private chat.

Also, as mentioned in KimMarie’s posting above, the difficulty in gaining access to the server caused many to alter their participation in the course. Some chose to log in early in the morning, others just persisted until they finally were able to get past the busy signals of the evening. Given the need to attend the computer while re-dialing, this problem certainly caused a loss of time and participation on the parts of many participants.

Technical problems, then, can be seen to hinder democratic participation by making successful communication difficult or impossible. The instances of technical problems were only a factor in the beginning of the class; once the software was set up and a method of contacting the FirstClass server established, the process went fairly smooth. Only one enrolled student did not complete the course due to frustration with technical obstacles.

Inability to access the server during evening hours was a persistent problem throughout the course, however. This factor did indeed control educational interaction in CAVE 641 by making connection to the server difficult and often frustrating. Given the unreliability of connections, it became impossible to schedule synchronous conversations, a feature of FirstClass many participants had desired to use for content discussion, summaries, and collaboration. Others reported changing and limiting online sessions due to problems connecting with the server. While other technical problems faded, evening connections were a constant source of problem to CAVE 641.

Beyond technical problems were the barriers to fluent communication in this medium. A number of factors about online courses needed to be accounted for, from dealing with large numbers of messages to the loneliness of only using a computer monitor to interact with other humans. Beyond mastery of the machine, there was also needed a mastery of the medium of communication in order for democratic interaction to develop.

Initially, the instructors and I had designed the course to use one conference as a weekly discussion area. It was felt that all twenty—two of the originally enrolled students could share this area and conduct a discussion on the readings assigned in the syllabus. By week two of the course the instructors and I became concerned with complaints of being overwhelmed with the number of messages that were being posted to the conferences. The following thread speaks to this feeling, and shows one strategy for dealing with the large degree of online information.

Everyone has such great things to state and questions to propose,
but I can't help
but feeling
overwhelmed
at the prospect of sorting through all these ideas
and still finding the room for comment
or
the time to answer all these perplexing question.
I really am enjoying reading everyone's comments
and all...
but, whew! It's getting thick out there, and it's only the 2nd week!!!

Mark: I'm finding I have to print everything out, read it, and THEN respond. I can't seem to remember a comment that I read 30 or 40 screens ago. I'm feeling guilty about all of the trees I'm killing, too, who ever said that earlier.

That is what I do, too! With only one message per printed page, I have well over 100 pages thus far in just two weeks. I have a hard time reading on the screen and concentrating. Besides, Ilike to highlight and write comments, so need the hard copy to do that.

The volume of dialog was also overwhelming Drs. Gibson and Hayes, who had a great deal of difficulty moderating all the postings. By the middle of the third week, it had become apparent that a change was necessary, both to the structure of the class and the evaluation requirements.

Well, folks, after two weeks of our extensive discussion, Chere and I are pleased but overwhelmed - and we know that many of you have similar feelings. In an effort to reduce the volume of messages that everyone has to read, and perhaps allow you each to contribute more, we would like to change the format of our weekly discussion. We have randomly divided the class into four smaller discussion groups. Chere will be posting the group assignments in a separate message. We chose random assignment since we wanted you to have diverse perspectives represented in this general discussion of class topics. When you open the Week 3 folder, you will see that it contains separate folders for each group. I have posted the Week 3 discussion questions in the general Week 3 folder. However, you should send your comments to your small group folder in Week 3. Thus, during the week you will be in discussion with only 5 or 6 people instead of 22.

At the end of the week (Friday), we ask that each small group post a summary of their discussion in the general Week 3 folder. That will enable us all to learn from each group's insights. In your small group, you can decide how to handle the summaries - you might alternate repsonsibility for composing them, or you might want to try the collaborative document to write them as a group.

Now, we know that some of you might feel that you just can't bear the thought of missing out on anyone's comments. If you want to "peer" into another group's discussion, it is quite possible to do so. However, we do ask that you confine your comments to your own group's discussion folder. After the group summaries are posted, we all can add our reactions to the summaries, ask questions of the other groups, etc.

In another effort to reduce your online workload, Chere and I have decided to drop the requirement of participation in a (different) small group focused on topic area (as described in the syllabus). We feel you'll get ample discussion time in the small groups that we're proposing for the general class discussion. However, you may form such special interest groups on your own if you like (these would not, however, substitute for the small groups we have designated). We'll make sure you have a conference folder set up for your discussion.

Finally - this reorganization is an experiment (we told you we'd be innovating as the course progressed!), so if it's not an improvement, we can adjust again. Let us know if the small group format works by adding your comments to reflections.

Dr. Gibson followed with assignments to various discussion groups:

Well, the names aren't too exciting but easy to remember. Now who is in which group? The answer follows. Again, post to your group, read any group(s) that inspires you and watch for great summaries at the week's end (Friday) which still gives us a little time to chat if a comment or two remains to be said. By the way, the groups were established the easy way by random assignment we simply counted down the list 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 etc. - you get the idea. Here they are!

[Student assignments listed to North, South, East, and West conferences]

Betty will stay involved with two of the groups and I'll be a part of the other two. We'll switch potentially after a week or two. Well, all the best in the small group discussions. We look forward to your reflecdtions as we flex on the proccess. chere

While groups began unevenly, three of the four matured into active discussion areas. The fourth, West, lost two participants early in the semester and never developed as a conference. The remaining members were eventually divided among the three more active groups.

An increase in participation and democratic action resulted in the division of the class into smaller discussion groups. By reducing the number of potential participants in the weekly discussion, more were able to have a voice in the details of the weekly topics and the act of summarizing the discussions.

In the initial class handouts Dr. Gibson suggested that the length of a posted message should be about the size of one’s computer screen (Appendix C). She felt that any more information would become tiring to read, and suggested students should break large writings into groups of smaller messages. Shorter messages would also facilitate discussion threads by keeping the topics identifiable. In the initial Saturday session, it became something of a joke that students were to be "pithy" in their comments. This was a descriptive term for messages that endured throughout the semester.

Early postings by students often ignored the "one screen" limit in size, however. This prompted the following reminder from Dr. Hayes, which was seconded by three different students in the duration of the thread:

Phil made a suggestion in Reflections that can ease the reading load a bit. He suggested that everone try to keep their messages to one screen length. I think that Chere also suggested this in her tips on using computer conferencing, but it's worth repeating now that you're into the mode. I know that personally I have a hard time taking in all the ideas in even one screen, given the small type size. How about if we all try to observe this limit?

I respect the notion of limiting to one screen per response. However at times, when regular access to the FC is tough (ie: out of town for a week, and I want to respond to all of the "discussion" questions for a week at the same time, I would appreciate the learner right to respond accordingly and in the amount of space needed.

Another solution is multiple messages once one gains access. The challenges of CMC :)

I. too, would appreciate if messages were kept to one screen in length.

Vicki, perhaps if there are several responses or points to be made, they could each be made in separate messages of less than one screen each. Focusing on one point per message would certainly help me process the information more effectively. As a learner that relies on "active experimentation", I'd rather read brief pointed comments and then use my time to act on them ! :)

Just wanted to express my agreement with the one screen rule. Even when I print out the longer messages, they tend to be difficult to follow. I like to compare this to being in a classroom. Usually the short and to the point comments are easier to follow there too. Machelle

Perhaps on result of message overload was found in some student’s report of having become "addicted" to being online in the class. The 24 hour nature of the interaction meant to many that they could not pass by the computer without logging on to see what may have happened in their absence. Vickie was most vocal in her reports of addiction, but Robin and George also directly mentioned it as a problem.

I am doing just what people warned me not to do...being a slave to the computer....it seems l cannot pass this thing without "logging in". It is like I a addicted to it!

Vickie: My response is just the opposite...I've even closed the door to the room where the computer lives!

I only wish I could. My office is in an open area...with no doors....I think its a matter of self-discipline.

The perception of a lack of communicative involvement marked many early comments. The perceived loss of ‘touch’ was often mentioned as limiting to a number of class participants, especially in the area of discussion. The medium was viewed as both slow and inefficient, inhibiting the free flow of ideas. Eight students mentioned feeling negative effects from the loss of human contact. KimMarie began a thread early in the class that found harmony with many of her fellow participants, including Dr. Hayes.

This week I found myself logging in regularly but not leaving any public trace of my presence. As I read I had thoughts and comments to make about what I saw, but didn't make them. I didn't think that I was inhibited by the medium. Often in face to face classes I do participate. I was looking forward to this experience. Each time I logged off, I asked myself why I hadn't added anything. Each time, I didn't quite have an answer. It wasn't really a negative experience, browsing without contributing, but it certainly was one that surprised me.

Kimmarie, I know what you mean. I'm really enjoying learning and using this new medium, but I miss the nonverbals and spontaneity of face 2 face conversation. I think a couple of reasons I don't respond as often as I would in conversation is that it takes so long to read and consider them all, that I feel pressured to go on and do what I need to do rather than linger and talk some more; also, since everything is posted rather than spoken, I find myself being more conscious and careful

of how I say things because if I am unclear or misunderstood, the follow-up questions will not come until much later, if at all. However, as I reread my comments, I notice that while the rest of you are making some very good, clear comments, I seem to be speaking in outlines--trying to jam a lot of ideas into a few sentences. Now I'm wondering if I always talk like this! I know I'm more of a global thinker than an analytical one, but it seems I'll be learning a lot more about myself through this medium than I might have in a traditional class. I know I'll be learning to type faster!

I appreciate the words of Kimmarie and Betty. I think I have this feeling of urgency, so rather than deliberately reading and reflecting on written words of others, I simply print it off, plan to read it later, and move on with things. It's Saturday afternoon, and I now am intending to sift and winnow through all your remarks, in an attempt to do some more "responsive writing" tonight. Maybe once I get through the apprehension in using this medium, and get in a "routine" of going to classes this way, my time at the computer will be more engaging and deliberate as if in class.

Hey, does anyone know how to get into "resumes"... I am finding that I'd like to recall more specifics on who is writing things, but can't recall how we tap into resumes. Also, when using the "mailbox", how to we address it to the receiver? Is name all that is needed, or do we some some "code number"?

Lastly, when might we be getting class rosters with adresses, phone numbers and/or e-mail addresses?

THANKS....EVERYONE HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND!!!

One thing that I discovered I am missing is the ability to acknowledge everyone's contributions, particularly in my role as co-facilitator. In a face-to-face class, we can use nonverbals (a nod, a smile, etc) to indicate that we have heard and appreciate the remarks of another person - without necessarily having "pithy" comments to add to the discussion! In this medium, there isn't really a practical way to do this without sending a message - and somehow it seems a bit silly to send a message that just says "right on"! Some of us may be left wondering if anyone even read our messages, if no one happnes to have anything to add to our comments. Anyone feel that way? I wonder if there are strategies that can be used to ensure that everyone feels included in this kind of medium, particularly with a group of this size. Of course, this can be a problem in face-to-face groups too.

Betty: I am in Reflections now, and when trying to Conference to share my feelings about this experience with the class, I was unable to do so...the only option I could use was Reply and I think this goes only to you...correct, or not? I'm so frustrated at the volume of READING! My eyes will allow me about 10minutes of this and then I can't do it for a few hours....any suggestions?

Karen: Your reply went into the general Reflections folder and everyone will be able to read it. When you reply, you should see "whom" you are replying to at "TO:" After you send the message, you will also be able to see it in the Reflections folder, just as everyone else will see it. I sent this message to the folder instead of just to you, since I thought that this might be a question for other people, too. A message will go to one person only if you address it specifically to that person.

Right on, Betty!

Thanks, Phil! Someone really IS listening!

Thanks, Betty, for the helpful hint, but public was my intention...I can't believe I'm alone in learning to have a "group" conversation with only one other person at a time.

Karen’s comment about posting is especially telling. There is a gap between responding to Dr. Hayes’ comments and feeling like participating in a discussion. In a classroom one would be more aware of the class listening to such a conversation, but in a virtual conference it takes reassuring that all can "hear" one’s voice.

Others commented in a similar manner about the greatly different and often narrow communication band afforded by the largely textual nature of the medium.

In our weekly discussion, a question came up that made me think about some of the differences between our virtual class and 'real' class discussions. The stories and anecdotes are missing, or greatly reduced in number. I quite like humor in the classroom and often find ways to tell little jokes based on the topics of discussion. To clarify, these are not 'distractors' but a way to keep on topic and include humor. I can't do that the same way in writing yet. A couple of my group mates have done that, and I love it. I know in Chere's initial comments, she said to be careful about the kinds of humor we use since the computer doesn't capture some of the 'real-time' things that make our language funny. So how to develop 'expertise' in the medium, so the message can be more whole. There may be a relationship here to people's concerns about time. We don't get those down-time moments of fun.

While I am enjoying the convenience this experience offers me, I do miss hearing people and seeing people. I also feel that because we are to be pithy....concise and to the point (something I am not good at)...I feel like I get uptight and can't chill out....we don't hear the joking and laughter we heard in the class or in the computer lab that Saturday morning.

Also, because we are perhaps more "conscious" and "thoughtful" in the selection (and then typing) of our words, does that change what we might have said??? The reflective and interpretive nature of this (at least for me) changes what the outcome might be for me. Is that good or bad???

The "paper trail" is really overwhelming for me. I have to get in a pattern to regularly review and respond, but not get obsessive with it. From Wednesday to Sunday, I logged in over 17 hours on this.

Related to the loss of human contact is the loss of the formality of the institutional classroom. In the following thread there is an interesting comparison of the workings of the classroom with computer conferencing. While James initiates the discussion with concerns that computer conferencing is too "fun," he and George quickly begin to complain about a loss of efficiency in the online environment which was largely due to the text—only nature of the medium.

Danger!! Danger!! (shades of R2D2 the robot)

CMC to some extent makes learning and interacting tith the course content into play.

However, there is the danger, at least for one individual with feline laying across his table at this moment, of letting the bliss of this nifty computer-mediated environment induce him to mess around within this environment instead of completing some not that interesting assignments.

Of course I don't know any such individual and am personally at page 274 of the book for my adult development study.

Nevertheless, in amount learned per unit time metrics, this environment is not at all as efficient with my time as a traditional graduate seminar and is also considerably more expensive.

But it sure is fun!!

Jim:

Say mor about efficiency - you note this meidum is not very efficeint for your learning. I'm just not sure I'm clear on what you mean.

1) In a class, it's controlled so that the discussion is not endless. I'm

sorry, but there's more to life than CAVE 641.

2) Threads of conversation are far more recognizable in audio than in

cyberspace, at least for a novice like me.

3) Focusing for short times is more efficient in time and mental energy

than infinite ramblings in cyberspace.

4) I can talk AND listen to someone else talking, process the info, and

reflect on it in FAR shorter time than it does to just read all of this.

5) Ponder this food for thought. How would you like to see a movie 1

minute a time, or read a novel or a paper one minute at a time? That

would be a good way to waste a lot of time. It takes time to get in sync

with the conversation, and logging off and on just prolongs this. To

paraphrase Jimmy Buffett: " WASTING AWAY in virtualville, looking

for my lost shaker of salt"

Chere,

I think that George beat me to the punch in answering your media-related question...

Suffice to say that in a graduate seminar, my subjective assessment of my perceived exposure to "new stuff" per unit time has been greater than I sense that it has been to date at this early point in the semester using FirstClass.

For me, the ability of a graduate seminar to compartmentalize the class discussion is also noteworthy. The discussion is arguably less a product than major written assignments and I'm feeling the need to reexamine my priorities...

<<Jim>>

I suspect that the online discussion is more time-consuming and challenging because we are all giving everyone's comments more thoughtful consideration than we are able to give in a face-to-face discussion. Deep rather than shallow processing, perhaps.

That might be one reason why we go into overload with numerous and lengthier messages.

Betty,

Bells go off when I read comments about "more thoughtful

consideration" because of our format. First, communication

is one-dimensional in cyberspace (i.e. you missed my eyes

rolling when I read your comments). Second, I believe that

time does NOT equal thoughtfulness (i.e. you can waste a

lot of time twiddling your thumbs). Third, even if this is more

thoughtful (which I'm not willing to concede), who's to judge

whether breadth is any better than depth. Fourth, just because

it's written (as opposed to spoken or received via any other

non-written medium), doesn't mean its better, more powerful,

more persuasive, etc. In fact, I zone out on-line more than I

do in many classes. Let's just say I'm skeptical at best, irritated

and angry at worst.

George

I agree with your points, George. However, I do find myself spending more time thinking about some comments online than I would have the time to do in class. I thought that some other folks have said the same. Can't say if ultimately that's better or worse, just different. I wasn't trying to claim that written discussion is better than face-to-face, either. Ideas certainly develop differently. And as KimMarie noted, we miss some of the humor and other affective dimensions online - or they are expressed differently. I would have liked to see your eyes role, for example! Maybe I would have been able to explain my comment a bit more. As it is, I was surprised that my comment made you feel irritated or angry.

George raises a number of interesting questions. The breadth versus depth comment particularly caught my (unrolling) eyes :) Time on task is associated with increased/enhanced learning although I recognize one can twiddle thumbs or read (or do both). The depth versus breadth issue is one we should all consider in this class. In CMC there is usually much more dicussion of content than one might see in a traditional f2f (face-to-face) class and more time to dreflect on that discussion. So yes, we may be more wide ranging in our comments (BREADTH) but we also have the opportunity to engage in a level of synthesis to enhance the depth of the conversation. That movement from breadth to depth is one we all should take responsibility for. As an example, when your pithy thought has been pounded by another, raise the conversation to higher level of thought - increase our attention on analysis, syntheses and evaluative issues. Reflecting on the process is very important. Finding solutions is equally important as is taking shared responsibility to resolve them.

YES - a one screen message!!!!!!

Was CMC selected as an instructional delivery system for CAVE 641 because it was the most appropriate for the course content and/or target audience or for some other reason?

<<Jim>>

JIM: A very interesting question--As we discussed back in September, we're all taking the course for different reasons, but looking at it from the design perspective is a different animal. Machelle

I decided to try CMC for CAVE 641 as an alternative format, but not as necessarily the most appropriate (and not with the intention of making this the sole delivery mode every time the course is offered!). We offer the course a couple of times a year, so students could choose not to take it in this mode if they didn't have the technology or desire to try it. CMC had been used for several different courses, and there had been positive responses from students, primarily I think because of the convenience of not having to travel or to attend a weekly class. I think that in CAVE we are generally interested in course formats that can help adults integrate their coursework with job, family etc. It also seemed like a good course for trying CMC because of the potential of relating the use of a new learning mode to the content of the course.

And - I will also admit that I wanted to try CMC because I think we in CAVE need to keep up with current trends. I guess I'm a believer in learning through experience too. If CMC is becoming a major learning mode in adult ed (and I believe it is, or will be), we need to make it a part of our graduate studies.

My intent is not to be critical on this point. I'm an instructional designer by training and this is the kinda discussion topic that gets my professional juices flowing...

As I mentioned to Betty at the first Saturday class period, the MS program in Training & Development at UW-Stout is piloting two program courses via two different distance ed delivery systems this semester and may make a committment to an ongoing program which could be completed without setting foot on campus if there is sufficient interest.

<<Jim>>

Well, Jim, I'd be interested to know if you feel this particular course is suited to CMC, from your perspective in instructional design. Keep those juices flowing! :)

At the risk of boosting Jim's count any further I decided I better be good and hit reply or Hollenbeck will get online and complain that I wasn't threading appropriately. I first used CMC for The Adult Independent Learner - the introduction to distance education course in CAVE. I did so for several reasons: (1) to avoid the countless hours of driving students seemed to be doing to get to class; (2) to introduce students to media being used in a number of businesses & industry training programs, and adult education programs for that matter; but most of all (3) to help students learn about and live distance education. We talked about the theory of distance education and practised it as distance learners.

One of the concepts we discussed at length was self-direction - being an autonomous learner, taking control over time and stress management, etc. Yes, we encountered similar struggles to this class however the FirstClass software has made our 641 class alot easier than 643. Would I do it again? You bet - next semester and many of the students who took that first CMC class (first for CAVE and the UW) have continued to pursue some more of their graduate studies this way - Machelle and Mary Helen as examples. No, it's not a panacea - CMC is one more tool to allow time and place flexibility. My past graduate classes via audioteleconferencing have offered place flex (as long as you're near a phone) but no time flex. CMC offers time and place flex as well as some degree of pace flex.

Early reports of being overwhelmed and even addicted to the use of CMC were perhaps inevitable given most students’ novice standing with any forms of electronic communication. Most developed strategies as the course developed and were assisted by the creation of smaller discussion groups. The lack of face to face human interaction was a persistent problem, on the other hand. Descriptions of the medium being ‘sterile’ and ‘one—dimensional’ never really died away, with both Machelle and Jane reporting in their course summations that they still felt something was missed because of the lack of human interaction. While there was evidence of a closeness among the participants, this warmth was unevenly felt; some never were totally comfortable interacting solely in a textual manner.

Given these data reporting technical difficulties and, perhaps more significantly, inhibitions to full methods of communications, it was important to discover if the participants of CAVE 641 were able to develop a fluency with the medium of CMC.

In comparing the first weeks of the course to later weeks, there was a growth in the length of threads and a decrease in dangling threads. "Dangling" indicates that a posting is meant to respond to another participant’s thoughts, but the message does not use FirstClass’ reply function to add to the discussion thread. Early discussions often displayed this difficulty. The following early example from the North conference starts as a typical introduction and solicitation of response by Linda. The third posting by Karen takes the conversation into a discussion on the readings, which is clearly not the original intent of the thread. Julie further extends this dangling part of the thread by responding to the discussion topic. No participant could guess the topic being discussed when scanning the conference’s list of messages and topics. "I’m on." was meant to be a simple greeting rather than a serious discussion of the topic at hand.

Greetings from the Merry Farm. I'm on from a little barn out in the sticks. I am connected to the real world. If you are reading this, please respond.

YAY! Glad to hear that all of the logistics worked out for you. I'd bet
a number of us have some stories to tell about trying to get connected.

Maybe we could start a new folder devoted to those stories - call it the B.S.
folder...

Welcome!

Linda: I found you and since you told me we are in the same group, I'm assuming I'm also a Northerner...As to the comments this week about learning style, I agree that educators need to be aware and sensitive to learning styles that differ from their own, but I have yet to encounter that in a learning setting. I'm also very leery of anything that smacks of pigeon-holing, for any reason. Those labels are just generalizations, like all other labels, and I think that we each have our own variation on that theme.

North Group: I'm unable to log on anytime other than Friday afternoons and sometime during most weekends, at least until the
1st of November, when I'll have Tuesdays open for meetings. Does that fit any other schedules? I don't know how you guys can work a full day and then sign on late at night! I find that when I get home (Mondays at 10pm, Tuesdays at 10pm, Wednesdays at
10pm) I'm pretty well used up because my day starts at 6am. Let me know how you do it, PLEASE!

Hi!!! Glad yo are on. Julie's checked in, too. It looks like Tuesday or Weds are good for her. Remember I am doing the summary this week. I will enter it in as a message to week 3, North group activities.

Karen:
Bravo to your comment about pigeon-holing. I've been on the receiving end of that type of
discrimination, and have NOT liked it. "Discrimination" is defined as 'to make a distinction in
favor of or against one person or thing as compared with others".

So to bring Betty's question into this..... Yes, I think the instructor has the responsibility to
at least attempt to meet the preferences of the learners. To be non-discriminatory when teaching,
one should at least acknowledge that various learning styles exist and be respectful of the way
various students learn. The instructor should also allow learners to ALTER their learning styles for
different topics and not expect that everyone will learn about the same thing in the same way all the time.

Pigeon-holing is a way of placing limits on other people simply for the convenience
of placing them in nice neat categories. Then there's only the responsibility of dealing with a
category, not with individuals. Does anyone else see this as a possible type of discrimination?

Another example of a dangling thread is when a participant uses a new topic heading to respond directly to a fellow discussant. Again, this confuses the discussion and makes it difficult for others to follow the arguments.

While early messages tended to be unconnected in nature and scattered in subject coherence, later discussions were well threaded and relatively direct in their subject fidelity. Generally, by the end of the semester each discussion group created one or two long threads regarding the week’s topic. This allowed many more participants to be able to follow and contribute to the discussion. These threads often extended over the week as the arguments were developed and countered. The following interaction in the East conference is typical of more developed threading, consisting of fifteen interactions spanning seven days.

Betty asks whether CMC overcomes power differentials in learning due to the removal of visual cues. If we wouldn't have had the initial class meeting and wouldn't have had ready access to most fellow students' resumes, I would say yes. However, I tend to see a person's face as I read their comments. I don't believe this creates any difference in my responses or participation, but it may for others. Also, even if we wouldn't have had an initial class meeting, if we used our real names in communicating we would probably be able to tell female from male classmates, which could create power differentials. In a way, I see classmate identification as being helpful in better understanding their comments and frames of reference. I realize, tnough, that for some cultures, etc., the power situations may be difficult or impossible to overcome. It would be interesting to conduct a CMC course under complete student and instructor anonymity to assess learner empowerment. Machelle

Machelle-

I agree. This first meeting helped in at least associating a face with the name especially after we described our backgrounds. It might be valuable to have a meeting half-way into the semester so the contact be even more meaningful.

Betty asked for a our own questions so I will throw one out. I read the Belenky article and found it interesting. Trying to gain feedback from members of the opposite gender, do these five ways of knowing (for those who read the article) make sense and seem accurate? Again, it seems that this research may possess the same potential weaknesses of other research - trying to come up with a one size fits all model. (seems so Maslowsian)

A second question - this research for the article was written in 1983. I believe that times have changed so much in only 12 years that the could be different results about the five types of knowing?

I agree with the point about gender identification, Machelle. Makes me suddenly wonder if names assume

exaggerated importance in CMC, for lack of other cues? But I am sure that we form other impressions based

on what and how people communicate in CMC that affect the "power" we give them. Someone in another

group mentioned how significant writing ability becomes in this medium. Makes me think of some people I

know who are very eloquent speakers but not very comfortable with writing. I wonder if they would have

very different roles in a CMC vs f2f class.

Re your comments, Phil, about Belenky. Your thought that societal changes might have an impact on the

Belenky scheme is intriguing. How do you think the ways of knowing might be affected? I have been searching for

other research that replicates or extends their research, and what's surprising is that there has been very little.

I did just get a dissertation from Harvard that builds upon it. If I can manage to read it before the end of the week,

I'll let you know what the findings are.

Machelle,

I too tend to see people's faces when I read their responses. When I read novels, I make up faces, so I suspect here,

even with anonymity. people would have faces - just not their real ones.

I too would be intrigued to have a course taught in total anonimity. Would it take some of the burden off the

faculty? Would it change the dynamics? Would I still be able to pick out people I had met in other classes? Could be interesting!

I have read quite a bit on Belenky's work and find it very useful in my work with patients. I find the developmental notions very like good therapy. Many of the severely abuse people with whom I work come in with no voice. They have trouble talking about themselves and often have very little sense of self. As they progress, they begin getting a self and move through stages that are essesnitally analogous to these stages. I have only had a couple men who were as profoundly abused and they seemed to start in the second stage and move forward more quickly. I have often wondered if that was the impact of different gender valuing in society.

For me, personally, I also felt like I went through most of the stages. However, I do not know how much of that is related to family history and how much is related to the stages themselves.

Betty

I too would be interested in that dissertation. Thanks!

Jane, I too was interested in your comments about Belenky. I find her stages not to be linear, I find that they spiral in a variety of ways. Sometimes I think of them as almost ontological "ways of being" as well as epistemological "ways of knowing." I have many times felt silenced in some areas of my life and lived as such, while in other areas been quite a constructer of living/knowledge.

I was interested in your comments about the twelve year span....how do you think society and history have changed the "stages"??? Thanks for the comment gave me some new thinking material. Always useful...must be a constructing day.

Mary Helen

I just read an interesting article about knowledge and beliefs as defined by students in the U.S. and Netherlands. One of the points they made was that the writing of the Netherland's students was superior to those here. They believed this was due to distance education formats being a primary methodology and written response the only way students communicated with teachers/students. Interesting!!

Mary Helen

Phil: My personal experience is that yes, the 5 ways of knowing described me at various points in my life. One thing I like about Belenky was pointed out well by Mary Helen--the authors emphasize that their 5 ways of knowing are not linear or hierarchical like Maslow's, Alderfer's, etc. theories. Although this is what the authors say, however, it's sometimes difficult not to see the 5 ways as a continuum from underdevelopment to self-actualization. For example, how can "silence" NOT be considered a beginning level? Machelle

Betty--Good point about names assuming exaggerated importance in CMC. Wouln't it be interesting to conduct a CMC course and assign male names to female participants and female names to male students and then survey to determine power relationships at the end of the class? Or, to assign all androgynous names (like Chris, Pat, Kim, etc.) and watch to see the effect on power?

I also agree with your comment on the importance of writing abilities in CMC courses. CMC appears to better allow all students to voice their views. (It's very difficult to interrupt someone via CMC!!) Personally, I commujnicate much more freely in writing than F2F, so I have participated more in this course than I would in a traditional classroom. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have gotten as much from a F2F format, I just would have reflected internally rather than externally. Is this true for others? Is external reflection better or worse than internal reflection from other learners' perspectives? From the instructor's perspective? Machelle

Mary-

That's an important question you raise in my mind regarding Belenky. Can we be at different levels of knowing in various parts of our life? For me, my level of knowing regarding college football has to at the highest (almost to the self-actualization stage as Maslow called it). Yet, in regards to areas like Teaching and Education i still regard myself at a lower level but see it changing as experience is acquired.

Could the difference also be due to TV in America?

Interesting question, Machelle, about internal vs external reflection. From an instructor perspective, I think

there's the possibility of getting more insight into how and what students are learning in this mode. Just

reminded me of using journals or learning logs. But the nature of the reflection is different, too, esp since we

all have an "audience" for our thoughts. Might be rather confining if as learners we focus on

coming up with "pithy" thoughts rather than just whatever is personally meaningful (not that the two can't be

or aren't equivalent!). Any other thoughts?

I have trouble being pithy and find I have little to say. But, when I can talk about my reactions and connections to the material, I can get way too long winded.

Never a tremendously active area, the H E L P ! ! ! ! conference was mostly accessed during the beginning weeks of the semester (see Figure 4.1). Questions generally covered more advanced problems as noted above. Vickie used this conference most, posting eleven question. My responses accounted for twenty-one of the fifty total messages.

The most telling evidence of the development of fluency in the medium of CMC may be found in the volume of messages posted to the CAVE 641 conference by the students. Of the 2387 messages posted to the conference, the nineteen students who completed the semester accounted for a total of 76% of the interactions, or 1814 total messages. Each student posted an average of approximately seven weekly messages.

Most of these interactions dealt with course content. 69% of the total postings were in conferences dedicated to course material. The remainder spread over areas dedicated to class business, personal reflections on using CMC, help and informal exchanges. Over 52% of the messages posted to CAVE 641 were sent to the topic discussion areas formed after the third week of the semester (Appendix F).

By the end of the course it was still evident that work was effected by the medium, though not to the extent found early in the semester. The achievement of mastery was evident in longer threads of discussion, the absence of H E L P ! ! ! ! postings and a general increase in use, especially in the discussion areas. Still, FirstClass never became a totally comfortable place for interaction, as illustrated by this late thread:

I feel that while I've learned a lot in this course, my attentions were often focused on the CMC aspect rather than on course content. This was much less the case than with my firs t CMC course, however. I believe that the course has taken more time than a traditional F2F course because when F2F, we speak our minds within seconds. In CMC, a simple comment may take several minutes to communicate, thus creating a multiplier effect for time. The same aplies to listening--it takes much less time to listen than to read (at least for me). Machelle

Machelle, I know I've focused a lot on the CMC aspect of the course, too. Being new to this, I don't have anything to compare it to. But from what Chere and John say, it may be normal to expect that the first time with a new format (and while you weren't new to CMC, our class format is quite different from your other course) will require extra energy. Since CMC is so new, we don't have much general information on how people adjust and their efficiency as learners as they gain "expertise" over successive courses.

Chere has said that a number of people in this class are planning to do a second CMC course in the spring. It will be interesting to see how theit experience in that course is similar or differs from this one.

I think it's a challenge in many ways, yet very flexible with benefits. It takes alittle time and patience to get used to this kind of course. I think it is definitely going to be part of future training. This kind of teaching can attract people who thought, for whatever reason, that they could not or did not have the means to get to campus. I think it's like CBT and mulitmedia, it's the wave of the future. Deb G.

Call me a fencesitter, but I have to agree with *both* Deb and Machelle's recent comments. On one hand, Machelle's right in suggesting that online participation requires more time than a f2f course. I haven't precisely tallied the hours, but it seems like this course requires maybe 8-12 hours a week versus 6-8 in a non-CMC. Does anyone else hazard a guess at the weekly time commitment compared to f2f classes?

However, as Deb noted, the benefits of a flex class schedule can easily outweigh the additional time. For me, due to work and family commitments, it would be difficult to take more than one f2f class. This semester, I have one f2f class in addition to 641. Having 641 helps me inch that much closer to a degree.

In returning to the four objectives in the 641 syllabus for the first time in weeks, I'm stamping the page "Mission Accomplished." I feel I've come a long way in understanding adult learners and in forming strategies to try to address learning needs. Applying theory to practice is an ongoing challenge, so I'll need some time to receive feedback and reflect on the outcomes. But this I know: with a better theoretical foundation, I'm more confident in suggesting learning solutions. I now know #why# we trainers do so much of what we do.

I too see both sides of the issue. I wanted to learn more about this tool and the course has certainly accomplished that for me. At times, I find the lack of immediate discussion frustrating, but I was unable to participate in any of the live chats due to things not related to the course. At times, I would have wished for face to face, but the content is well covered either way. If I am going to move to Montana and work with this form of teaching, I need to understand the frustrations and think about ways to address them. In all, a good experience that I wish had not been so complicated by my "other life."

At first I was mourning the lack of f2f contact in this class. I realized how much a part of learning this is for me. I like the interactions, discussions, humor, expressions and gestures of others. It makes the information and thoughts come to life for me. Thru CMC, I think I've been looking and thinking about other's thoughts more literally. I'm not sure this is positive or negative, at this point.

I can see using this method as a way to encourage dialog between many people where time issues don't have to play a major role in participation. I hope to "sell" some of my co-workers on this tool. We'll see how that goes.

Looking ahead for next semester, I plan to take CAVE 643. I'm hoping I won't be so focused on the technology so I can focus more on the discussions, content, and a little more group maintenance, and perhaps, become more comfortable with asking people to expand on and challenge their thoughts. I believe that I've let that slide because the immediacy of f2f isn't there. Sometimes a response seems random unless you go waaaaaay back into a thread.

I hope there will be a bunch of you in 643 next semester. I've learned so much from this process and from all of you.

Jane, I really can relate to the message you so eloquently put. Thanks for your sharing!

Oops, I guess Gen was the relayer of the message I just responded to and not Jane. Thanks for sharing Gen.

I appreciate the sense of frustration you speak of...I went between feeling suspended to feeling like a ping pong ball.

Still, students transcended these difficulties to the degree that they were able to contribute a great deal in conversation with the course material. They developed fluency that enabled them to carry on meaningful dialog regarding course content, as well as discussions such as the above thread. All discussions were actively joined by the majority of students and concerned themselves with the issues of the class. Though never completely invisible to the participants, they had transcended the frustrations of conversation in a medium and developed a way to communicate meaningfully to one another. This, then, allowed evidences of democratic action to begin to develop.

Democratic Action

The identification of democratic action associated with computer conferencing within the conduct of CAVE 641 is central to this study. In the newer medium of CMC structural differences in the communication process may serve to facilitate democracy through both physical and strategic changes in the familiar educational process. I will first look at those properties of computer conferencing that involve issues of responsibility in the students and instructors. Then I will look at evidence involving the equality of the medium, and by extension democratic action in CAVE 641.

For the purposes of this section, I concentrated on four weeks of the class. The third and fourth week were the first weeks of the smaller discussion groups and were useful for finding the ways in which students interacted in creating discussion communities. The eleventh and twelfth weeks were chosen as the last full discussion periods, and showed the ways in which the CAVE 641 class developed over the semester. Given the nature of the asynchronous conversations, many of the data used fell slightly outside of these two defined time periods.

One of the most essential qualities in forming a democracy is responsibility (Wiebe, 1995). This quality is essential in a form of governance where participants take on the duties of self—rule; there is no external source to rely upon for the work of the state. For the purpose of this study, I have identified several social and individual actions as evidences of responsibility.

The first area I saw evidence of responsible action was in community building. Members of the class went beyond establishing a relationship with the instructors, taking a great deal of time to form a bond with one another. Democratic action in education depends on the formation of communities of learners. In the structuring of CAVE 641 this need was given a great deal of consideration, both for informal interaction and topic discussion.

During the planning of the class the instructors recognized that there was a need for a conference dedicated to less formal interactions. The "Corner Cafe" was created for this purpose, and came to be used by participants for light conversation, announcements and other more general types of postings. Here, students got to know each other outside of the context of the class discussion.

The "virtual hallway" of CAVE 641 began slowly, but grew throughout the semester. During the period of weeks three and four there

were a total of eight message postings, three of which were by instructors and rest by two students. These postings were concerned with the same thread, and were usually only a sentence or two long. Dr. Gibson began the thread to "break the ice" in the conference, and only Vickie and Philip chose to participate. By weeks eleven and twelve, the Corner Cafe had become much more of a meeting place. Fifty—two postings were recorded in this later period, with both instructors accounting for eleven of the messages, myself for one, and students the rest. The average length of each message increased by six fold, and a wide variety of topics were developed (see Table 4.1).

In all, the social section of CAVE 641 grew enormously in popularity, and served its intended purpose as a community meeting ground. Students formed a relationship to one another through the discussion of topics like University of Wisconsin football games, Halloween plans, and the inevitable snow. This informal dimension of interaction helped to create community bonds within all facets of the class.

The division of the class into small discussion conferences also produced a great deal of community building work. During the initial period in which groups were formed, weeks 3 and 4, there were a number of messages in two of the conferences concerning the procedures in which to set up the process of working together. Each of the four groups was given a great deal of independence as to how it would proceed; while one of the instructors would be present within the discussion areas, it was up to the students to organize and conduct the work on each weekly topic. Some groups began the community building process right away, while others took prodding. The East and South groups began quite quickly, with East being especially social in their community’s interactions. North began slowly, initially needing some prodding by Dr. Gibson before the group began to gel. West had a slow and difficult beginning, caused by login difficulties and absent members (see Table 4.2).

The general trend showed a number of messages being sent to one another within the group to initiate the manner in which the group would proceed. Usually, one member would suggest a path and others would agree or offer alternatives. The most addressed issue of community revolved around how weekly summaries would be posted. While some groups mentioned assigning facilitators to lead discussion, no group actually used that structure, instead allowing the conversation to form more naturally.

These smaller groups seemed to inspire more intimacy and connectedness that the initial discussion areas involving the entire class. These initial postings in the EAST conference typified other small discussion groups’ efforts to initiate their work.

One of my fantasies some day is to teach on the Coast of Maine. I really like this idea to split the group into more manageable working groups. Would anyone like to try a chat of the East....All evenings but Wednesday are good for me...Any takers.

Hi easterners. Any idea how we were chosen for the east. It's ironic, I just moved here from Philadelphia. Should we talk with East Coast accents? Believe, it's not pretty.

Just a note I will be out from Thursday to next week Monday, October 2.

Hello fellow group members! I guess we'll be spending a lot of time together this semester! Mary Helen--Just wanted to let you know that I tried to answer your invitation to chat last week, but I don't think I was getting through. I guess I'll have to read the instructions again. Just didn't want you to think I was being antisocial.

Also wanted to let everyone know that I will be out of town for the majority of the week, so this will not be a good week for me to be a moderator. Any other week is OK, though. I'll try to get my comments online before I have to leave.

Any night except Wed. is OK for me for a chat too. Hope you all are having a nice weekend!!

Machelle :]

Hello everyone! I just droped a line to tell you that I finally made it. My computer has been incompacitated, so I'm sorry for waiting until the end of the week to announce my presence. Oh well! I'm here and thats all that matters. So far I'm really having a great time by using this mode of learning and by breaking up into groups is going to make it even better. Bye now!

This friendly negotiation style between group members continued throughout the semester. Generally, discussion was held regarding who was to summarize discussions for the entire class to read, as well as other general housekeeping tasks.

Many participants took the time to inform fellow group members that they would be absent from upcoming discussions due to business trips or other obligations, as Machelle did in the above examples. While perhaps a small gesture, these reports served as an indication that students felt responsibility to the group and its success. In Weeks 3 and 4, there were a total of 28 reports of absence in the discussion areas, while in Weeks 11 and 12 there were seven such messages.

A significant amount of discussion was marked by appreciative comments about the contributions of other students. These personal and supportive statements reflect a number of comments found through the semester’s interactions. Messages marked as being supportive held a significant compliment or other comment; merely friendly exchanges were not considered supportive but rather informal or personal. Two samples of supportive statements follow: The distribution of supportive statements are summarized in Tables 4.3 and 4.4.

Mary Helen-


Very good point on the need for openness to learning styles as an indivdual. Your example of the change management rings true as I had a similar example as a student in a leadership class.

George, thanks for your leadership in offering to synthesize our ideas for the week. As a Converger, Kolb says I'm a fan of decisive action, and your certainly was.

In spite of these reported indications, one may still reasonable ask if there was a sense of community in CAVE 641. Indeed, some participants still felt something was missing in their interactions with fellow students and instructors. Reflections about a lack of the sense of community prompted KimMarie to initiate the following thread in the most general conference of CAVE 641:

I've been wondering about community formation in this virtual world of ours.
Does anybody know about resources which might address it?
Does anyone have any comments to make?
Maybe this is a reflection topic, and it could be taken up in
that 'room of our house' as well.
KimMarie

Kim Marie: I'll try to follow up on the research side re: computer mediated ocnferencing and community formation. Ours is a new adventure as you know so there is a limited literature. I'll check and you nag if I forget!!!!

Bulletin board services, chat lines on areas like American Online, chat sessions on different internet services - really depends on what you specifically want to do.

Phil,
I guess I know what's out there;
I'm wondering about how people go about
getting a sense of belonging, maybe why they
hook up in the first place. I suppose your 'it depends'
answer fits the bill there as well.

How about us as a
group--strangers with the exception of one meeting who
now spend lots of time with one another's ideas. Do you
think of your group mates when you read? Do you feel like
you can anticipate their responses when you post a message?
Do you write trying to address their concerns and perspectives?

That's the kind of thing I had in mind.
KimMarie

KimMarie:
It seems to me that the community you're missing is what I was talking about when I said (whiningly) that I am missing the synergy of a group session. I miss that collective energy and enthusiasm that f2f interactions generate. Even though I'm enjoying the content, and finding some pain and discovery in reflection and remembering, it appears to be a solo activity, and I'm not feeling connected to the others in this class in the way I do in other seminars where collaboration plays a part. Silly me, however, I'm going to do this again next semester, just to see if that connectedness can come from weaning myself away from hearing a human voice.

Karen..youhave nicely hit on the piece that is "missing" with this teaching/learning medium.

In spite of these concerns, a sense of community was exhibited in a number of different ways throughout the semester. Indeed this very discussion concerning the lack of community can be seen as acting to build that very quality. Final comments at the end of the semester reflected the sense of group that had developed throughout the semester, and how many of the students were going to miss their cohorts in the class.

...

Once I got past the technical issues, I really enjoyed coming to know the on-line personalities of everyone in class. In some ways, I felt like I really got to know more about people through this medium than in f2f classes. The discussions we had were thought-provoking, and many struck me on an emotional level. That was something I never expected from this medium. Reading the written word still strikes me as more absolute than listening to others speak. I expected the class to be sterile and without emotion. How wrong I was! ...

...
Now it is about three weeks later, and in a mere 4 days this class will officially be over with our final papers due. Despite the obvious euphoria associated with finishing the semester, I will truly miss many of you. I "eaves-dropped" on most of your conversations, and although we did not all regularly dialogue, I feel like I got to know many of you. What I learned from your reflections and thoughtful entries were more than one might imagine, and the HOURS of dialogue were certainly more than the 45 hours face-to-face classroom would have allowed. The corner cafe and reflections folders were nice "corners" to share those things that often get said over a beer after class or a cup of coffee at break. They are nice features. I have to admit that access was really not a problem for me. I suspect it is because I accessed the progam through a local Internet provider. The access to John Hollenbeck for technical support, and Betty and Chere for academic and personal support was much appreciated.

I have read the "au revoir week" entries that preceded mine...the major themes and messages shared in them, are echoed by myself....the anxiety over the technology; the enhance potential for reflection time; the opportunity for collecting ones thoughts to make a pointed response; the remarkable way we "really" got to know classmates....obviously, we each experienced these at different levels and sophistication, but I have to feel they were felt to some degree my all of us.
...

As we shall see below, the course was tightly structured by the instructors. Topics were defined in the syllabus (Appendix B) and discussion questions were suggested weekly by Drs. Gibson and Hayes. But beyond this structure a number of discussions "broke out," often in areas that were not intended to cover subject of the discussion. The following discussion was found in the Reflections conference, which was not intended to be a place of subject discussion.

A matter of trust

Daloz points out that nothing is more important in mentoring than trust. This fact alone shouts loud and clear why teachers today have trouble connecting with young adults from the streets.

Who can street kids trust when everyone's out to get their own? Not, Whitey in some honky school, the same Whitey who they might believe put them in their condition in the first place. If I'd grown up in a similar environment, how could I not feel the same way?

I recall that some CAVE 641 classmates work as educators in the Bureau of Corrections. I wonder what you might have to say about overcoming barriers of trust with some of your students.

Tim-

Is it Trust that educations need or is it respect? In mentoring relationships, Trust is the issue because for the protege to open up they must have trust and confidence in the mentor.

On the other hand, be it education, politics, business, etc. many times it is just as important or more important that respect be involved. Trust may not be able to obtain many times as for me it involves a personal relationship. I really believe that our President Clinton, the Republican nominees, and many other politicians aren't respected by the public because it is our perception that they haven't earned it. Just some thoughts.

Interesting ideas, Phillip.

I can also think of people who earn our respect, but for whom trust is out of the question. Say, hard-working, innovative, wealthy used car salespeople?

When I think about the people I work with, trust comes very late in the game and has to be earned on a near daily basis. There is mutual respect, caring and an effort to listen and understand the other person;s perspective. If that is consistent, the boundaries are clear and respectful and the relationship stays safe despite some unsafe areas of idscussion and work - then the trust may come.

Working behind the scenes as an instructional designer who never meets the student end-user I don't really need either their trust or respect.

However it is essential that I establish raport and EARN credibility with the members of the technical community that I must interface with in order to design, develop, and implement new training programs.

I believe that, in technical environments, credibility goes beyond trust and respect. 'Ya gotta be able to "Talk the talk" even if you're not an engineer or scientist.

For some reason, advanced degrees in education don't cut it either. In health care settings, Dr. so & so has instant credibility associated with the title. Being Dr. so & so can be a negitive in business & industry, perversely enough, and most folks I know don't even talk about it.

Jim,

I found your comments about the credibility of people

with doctoral degrees interesting. I agree that some

people automatically give others credibility with a title.

However, I think this is dangerous. TItles are titles,

and they do not confer competency. Some of the

smartest physicians I know are the least competent,

in my opinion. Frankly, I'm skeptical of big time

credentials.

George

Tim,

Sorry to join the conversation so late, but regarding your question about establishing trust in a correctional environment,

it's obviously very difficult because as educators we have two roles:

the nurturing, supportive teacher who tries to

convince them they can succeed in areas in which

they have failed before, and tries to come up with strategies to help them succeed

and

the staff member who can impose discipline for rule violations, and must ensure safety for all above all else.

Our role is not unlike a parent who supports with one hand and disciplines for limit-testing with the other. Humor helps.

As Phil and Jane mentioned, establishing respect and clear boundaries are more important (and much easier) than real trust, (especially since many of the men I work with are not interested in or capable of establishing a trusting relationship), but demonstrating a caring and accepting attitude along with a willingness to keep trying and not give up on them often leads to a positive working relationship. Being authentic and professional and keeping your word also helps.

If I can convince each man that he can trust me to try to help him and be fair, while at the same time trust that I will not allow anyone to disrespect or harm anyone else, I consider that success. Most days with most people this works.

Many of the men are surprised to discover that I genuinely enjoy what I'm doing most of the time.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but there are no easy answers to your question. Did this help?

George,

When you say that some of the smartest docs you know are the least competent do you mean that they have difficulty applying what they know in diagnosis and treatment?

I also am skeptical of credentials. Anyone who has ever taken a course with B.F. Skinner or Bob Gagne will likely tell you that they are crummy instructors. I personally would go that far. The trick I suppose is to admit grad students who will succeed in spite of everything.

Within my department, ya gotta both talk the talk, walk the talk, and accomplish something to achieve credibility. The technical community that I must interface with each day is quite happy if I can just talk the talk...

Jimbo-

If you can talk the walk and walk the talk (just giving a change-up as it is becoming an overused cliche sort of like walks like duck...) does this in fact not mean the learners respect you. I am always reminded of a professor who was well-liked in school until it was found that he had a habit of dating one his students. Once wind of that got around, no matter how hard the prof tried, the students had lowered their opinion of him to the point where they would openly criticize him in class. ( I don't believe he was an ethics professor).

Jim,

Some physicians can expound on the

pathophysiology of disease states, tell

you the most up to date research and

clinical work that exists, score at the 99th

percentile on standardized tests, etc. But

you put them with a patient and they fall

apart. They can't diagnose, they can't talk to

patients, they can't prescribe, they're all thumbs

during procedures, etc. When I say competenc,

I refer to the ability to practice medicine in a

humane, thoughtful, and scientific manner.

George

Phil-

In all fairness, I'm working at being able to talk the talk in terms of engineering and comp sci.

I was complimented about a month ago in Cleveland when our new technical editor referrred to me as "the expert" in a spoftware package that I'm developing training for.

I certainly don't feel like the expert and am on shakey ground without second semester college physics and an engineering degree.

I'm not quite certain what you're getting at Phil. I would hope that the learners respect me but the only time that I meet students is during pilot course offerings and 98+% of our students are male. 'Can't date em.

If I remember correctly from a few postings ago, my point was that because I essentiall never meet the students, they are not stakeholders in approving "my stuff," and therefor it isn't important to earn their respect.

George,

Exactly what I thought you'd say. I.e., all knowledge with little or no ability to effectively apply.

In my opinion, these folks are failures of the medical educational system. The fact that they score at the top does not negate the fact that they cannot effectively perform major elements of their job function.

Thanks, Betty V.

What sticks out in your reply is the surprise your learners expressed at your enjoyment of your work. Your positive attitude must be out of their frame of reference. Once they realize you're for real, they seem to accept and respect you.

I think we are confusing trust with respect in the workplace. Trust would mean you need to know a person from many dimensions. We use the word rather lightly. .saying I trust he/she can get the job done. When we mean we respect the past work record and assume the person is capable of the task. But if you ask yourself who you trust in life, I would assume it is someone that you have known for many years in the work place or within your family and with whom you can share confidences. Trust means you can show your vulnerability to someone.

Students often might say that they yearn for trusting someone in the educational pursuits, but I think it is as the readings say they wish that someone would acknowledge their problems and pursuits at the moment and give them confidence to move forward.

Jim noted that never seeing his students raises questions about his ability to gain their respect, etc. if I'm recalling correctly. One of the things we always recommend when we design educational programs to be offered at a distance, e.g. print-based materials is that the content specialist and perhaps even the collaborating designer introduce themselves in print with picture. Our hope is that these introductions help the learner understand who the author(s) are, their background and experience (to establish credibility and perhaps respect) and a little personal trivia to help the learners begin to see them as people - humane, unique, with warts, etc. The tone of the materials helps to further engender respect if the materials seem to respect the learner, his/her experience, background, etc. Interaction via print or email for 'tutorial help', grading etc.heps even more. You get the picture. I believe we can establish both at a distance with honest and open communications.

To the contrary Chere,

My point was that I don't wory with my credibility with the end-user target audience because I don't interface with them on a day-to-day basis or need their approval (sign-off) at critical points during product development.

Members of the technical community and instructors are however forces to be delt with.

George

I agree with you. Have seen lots of book smart, but can't keep it together with the patient and family practitioners in both medicaine and nursing. Does create refugees from the bedside. At times, I think htat is a benefit to all.

jane

Jim

You may not need their approval on a day to day basis, but if you don't have it, in the long run you don't have a job!

jane

Jane,

Sorry to split hairs but the issue we were discussing was credibility, not approval.

I essentially never see students, except this week when I got shipped off to Detroit to help out a new instructor. For this reason, rapport and credibility are not issues.

Jim - I have to disagree. I think credibility is always a concern whether a face-to-face (f2f) teacher/trainer, distance teacher/trainer or just part of the design team for education and training f2f or at a distance. I certainly found evidence of this fact when chatting with faculty on the east coast about an instructional design course. The faculty ( a few at least) felt the authors had no credibility in their eyes and therefore discounted the product entirely.

chere

Chere-I can certainly envision academics discounting a book, research findings, or instructional product based upon the credibility of the author and/or the institution that the author is associated with. These academics you reference appear not to be users (i.e., learners) as I am referring to

However, the author (me) remains unnamed to the learners who happen not to be academics. Some of them to them are not college graduates. I don't believe that you are familiar with the LEARNER target audience that I am referring to.

Perhaps reviewing the entire thread will clarify.

Jim:

My assumption is that you are talking about corporate engineers and the training of same - an audience I am only vaguely familiar with through my work with GE Medical Systems and the College of Engineering. If this is the audience, I remain committed to the need for credibility even if one is the instructional designer and somewhat behind the scenes. I sense you feel I have missed something correct :) ?

Chere,

Correct. Engineers are but one-half of the target audience. Regardless, these lay audiences do not generally differentiate between instructional developer and instructor. As the developer, I am uncredited in the student materials.

For all practical purposes, I never meet the students and therefore am not concerned with establishing credibility and rapport with them. I never have the opportunity to establish credibility and rapport because I never meet or speak with them!

This is not to say that credibility and rapport with instructors and other members of the technical community is unimportant. It is very important.

This is perhaps the third time I made these same points within this thread and I think its time that it died a natural death.

Jim

I think you have a very different style than some of the rest of us - at least from the intensity of the questions and comments. I could not design without being very concerned about the student, the crediblity of my presentation materials, the user friendliness and on and on and on. I also know that I have a much mroe emotive style of relating to the world than you seem to have and I wonder if that is part of the intensity of the discussion. My experinecing of you is "all logic" and I wonder if the differences in life approach are infuluening the discussion.

Jane,

You have indeed put words into my mouth in your recent posting, implying that I am not "concerned about the student, the crediblity of my presentation materials, the user friendliness" of my materials and the like. I invite you to review the thread containing the written record of my postings.

Perhaps we should all just agree to disagree and move on to more interesting discussion.

I do tire of restating/clarifying myself and am going nospeak on this topic.

Logic is valued and "works" when dealing with a predominantly noneducator population as I do. Is not diversity of what you call life approach suppose to be a good thing for organizations/classes?

Jim

I think we are making the same point. It was not about rightness or wrongness - just about there are different

styles. All are needed and if we rocognize differences in style, maybe we can stay out of the nit picking! I do think we are on the same wave length on this. : )

jane

Students in the course were also quite happy to critique actions that struck them as invasive or inappropriate. Towards the end of the semester, DoIT posted a survey form to every university course using FirstClass. This uninvited action prompted reactions against the invasion of CAVE 641’s area, as well as the possible motives for the study in the first place.

Is anyone else getting annoyed with the user survey messages? I answered it! I feel like there's
someone at my door asking me for my opinion/cooperation in signing something. Maybe this is the
warm-up to all of the political campaigning to come in '96.

Gen,

I totally agree. I think we should boycott
the darn thing. What's the insurance that
the survey will be confidential and anonymous.
It's like doing a survey for Big Brother.

George

I took a course in survey development some time ago.

Prof said that it's helpful to create a survey file of annoying instruments to reference the next time ya gotta do one yourself.

I didn't save this one though cause it was so poorly done (IMHO).

Some of these self directed discussions were quite long and involved. The following message began a discussion that continued for over a month. It was based upon the readings, but the subject matter was outside of the course. The pressing nature of the questions asked inspired a long and interesting thread.

I've been mulling over the idea of "lost certainties" for the past few days, and I wonder if there is an ethical soft spot to this process. What if we cause someone to take a hard look at their certainties, and they don't like what they see. If they can then learn from the process and grow from it, fine. However, I wonder if there are some people which can be left devastated by the process, and rather than grow, they withdraw, become cynical, are hurt, etc. Do facilitators have an ethical responsibility to clean up after the mess they can make?

George (Thinking of things that make me go Hmm)

(Continued in Appendix J)

Throughout the semester students were quite willing to pose questions and take the discussions into areas not specified by the syllabus.

In this week's conversation in North, Betty posed an interesting question that I thought the whole class might have fun pondering...

What would an educational system look like if it were designed on uncertainties and assumptions?

The discussion on all of the theories is great, but what do we do with these theories when we have identified them and have the ability to classify educators and students into these groups? I see that there were a few comments about the subject of learning to learn. Someone mentioned that it was an inate ability that we have to, as students, recognize the teachers style and adapt our learning skills to this. M&C chapeter 7 includes a brief discussion of the topic learning to learn. The question that I raise is who is responsible for this concept. Are we as educators suppose to teach our students how to understand our teaching style or are we suppose to recognize the students learning style and adapt our teaching style to match the students learning style?

I would guess that it would be most productive for both students and teachers to have some knowledge of the others style and be able to use that information to make adjustments. I wonder if learning is maximized through this method though because the teacher is most comfortable teaching in his/her own style and the student learns more effectively by being taught in his/her learning style. I wonder if others with teaching experience in class could provide some insight for me.

Tom

About the direct application of theories of learning--I'm not sure that there is a one to one correlation. These theories are about the process of learning, and may offer ideas about practice, but the actual teaching methodologies and activities may spring from the context in which they're practiced. In some ways it seems that Betty H.'s comment about learning contracts and behaviorism might enter in. A teaching activity might look like it can be traced to any one of the learning theory types unless we understand the purpose for which it was designed or how it is meant to be used by teachers and students, unless we know the assumptions attached to the activity, I'm not sure we can really know from where it springs. Journals have often been used in humanistically oriented writing classes, but if a teacher only comments on the inaccuracies of grammar without talking about the learner's ideas, that smacks of 'behaviorist' reinforcement.

And that leads me to another comment about the mixing and matching of theories--some have suggested that eclectic is 'good'. But I wonder if they aren't referring more to eclectic practice than eclectic theory? Each of those theoretical constructs has some particular notions, often contradictory, in their underlying constructs. If we accept a theory, aren't we accepting it with its baggage too?

Does the OJ Simpson verdict in four hours issue reflect concrete/contextual "learning" or concrete/contextual "performance"?

Some folks make a distinction between learning as acquisition of new behaviors, verbal or otherwise, and "merely" acting on that earlier learning.

I agree with Vickie's implication, which I read between the lines, that there may not have been that much new learning or processing of meaningful information during this brief four-hour period.

<<Jim>>

The course structure called for each week’s discussion to be "tied together" in a summary that recapped the group’s contributions. Initially, the instructors took it upon themselves to summarize the week’s discussion when there was only one area for interaction. After the class was divided into its four discussion conferences this task was transferred to the students. Each group was asked to post their summaries in a central area in order for other participants to get an idea of the directions other conferences were taking with the shared subject matter.

Various methods were proposed for creating a weekly summary. Some planned to meet synchronously online to develop the summary, but conflicting schedules and login difficulties made that impossible. Others experimented with "collaborative documents," which were messages that were formatted in such a way as to allow all conference members the ability to add to and alter the content of the document. This process proved to be unwieldy and confusing. Finally, each group decided to rotate responsibility for the summary between all group members, and have each designee write the summary. It was then posted to the conference for approval and then sent to the central area for the rest of the class to read.

Few direct questions regarding the conduct of the class were put forth by the students. This lack of concern regarding direction speaks equally to the clarity of the syllabus and the independent nature of the students. Questions that were asked generally concerned either technical issues, or were requests for clarification of some posted assignment not found in the original syllabus.

What are the current expectations for participation OUTSIDE OF THE SMALL GROUPS that have been formed (North, South, etc) and within what folder is this participation intended to take place?

I kinda forgot about this earlier stated requirement with all of the shifting around of folders and want to ensure that I don't end up getting my toccus in a sling.


<<Jim>>

and...

A couple of questions regarding our grade weightings:
In the syllabus we were also going to do a group participation
report. It seems to me that when we split into small groups, there
was mention of a change to that assignment, but I can't remember
what the changes were. I've looked through previous weeks and
couldn't find the message. Could someone refresh my memory?

If we aren't doing that assignment, how should we redistribute the
percentages to our other tasks? KimMarie

There was only one direct appeal to the instructor’s authority in mediating the conduct of the class. Vickie had posted a general group message about some of James’ comments in the South conference, a discussion group she was not a member of. Her comments elicited a unilateral protest from James that strongly reminded Vickie of the rules posted by the instructors at the beginning of the semester. A copy of his posting was sent directly to Dr. Hayes, presumably to elicit her support in having the action condemned.

CC: BETTY R. HAYES

Vickie,

I personally do not appreciate you're trespassing via e-mail posting into the South folder and question its appropriateness.

It is not appropriate.

Kindly follow the ground rules regarding posting into other groups folders which were defined by the instructors at the beginning of the semester.

Dr. Hayes’ clarification was posted to the ensuing thread.

To clarify, Chere and I did not try to restrict your reading of all the groups' discussions. We asked you to make comments only in your own group primarily to restrict the quantity of "required reading" for any one group. I think that it's great that many of you are interested enough in the group discussions to read all of them, and I hope you all take it as an indication of the value of your comments for everyone. Vickie did make a slip in adding her comments to South, but she wasn't trespassing where she should not have been.

The entire Trespassing thread (Appendix I) stood as the sole example of an appeal to the instructors’ authority, and was a topic of much participation and emotion. Most other action by students in the class took place without direct procedural questions.

Discussions generally were concerned with assigned readings, and the instructors took it upon themselves throughout the semester to post overviews and discussion questions to guide each group in the ensuing week. This role did not change throughout the semester, as seen by the following examples. Also, grading was judged solely by the instructors, and was based upon work assigned by them. Assignments were within the framework of the syllabus and were handed in for grading. This part of the course, therefore, took place in a manner typical of a university course.

In the studied discussion areas, however, there were few instances of direct instructor control beyond the initial weeks of the course. In Weeks 3 and 4, the North and West conferences received five and three messages from instructors directing action. Most of these messages were concerned with the slow start in discussion within these conferences. By Weeks 11 and 12, there were no instances of teacher direction within the discussion conferences.

Analysis of discussion group messages has revealed that CAVE 641 indeed was able to form friendly and effective community of learners. Participants generally took responsibility for their actions within the groups, with discussion being largely free of instructor’s initiating interactions or guiding hands. Each group developed a manner in which they were able to govern and regulate their own work in the class through sharing duties and supporting cohorts. There was little evidence that instructors needed to tell students what to do; they were able to hold class on their own.

Another aspect crucial to democratic action in education is equal opportunity for all participants to participate. In CAVE 641, all action that shows the traditional cues and power relations of the classroom are not present is considered in some way to be democratic. There are several ways in which equality was made manifest in this study; equal access to the educational process, true peer to peer interaction and topic discussion, and re configured roles for students and instructors. These data show CAVE 641 was able to accommodate a wide variety of students’ needs while providing equal status for all participants.

Computer conferencing can have the effect of eliminating distance and time as factors for participation in education. Of the nineteen students who completed the course, seven lived a substantial distance from the University of Wisconsin—Madison campus. Having the course online helped to make the course possible for some students, and more convenient for others.

I approached this course with a sense of efficiency as I looked forward to not having the weekly 220 mile drive to and from class. I even rationalized the increase time required for the course 'dialogue' as being okay as I didn't have the four hour a week drive to contend with.

and...

I found this delivery system very convenient and appreciated not needing to commute to Madison...

Also, one student was able to connect to the class while traveling and thus was able to continue his participation with the course, as well as giving a demonstration to his training seminar.

I put the client disk files in a directory on my f: drive at work which is accessable by a collegue in metro-Cleveland. He installed them with a talk through by me on the phone. He was able to do a short test log in with me on the other end of the line.

Sooo, it looks like my informal demo of FirstClass in Cleveland on October 12 is a go.

If only it were so easy for me to get up and running with FirstClass from my residence!!

<<Jimbo>>

The elimination of time as a factor allowed many students to participate during those times of the day that were most available for them, as opposed to being bound to set class hours every week. Participation in CAVE 641 took place throughout the week, with Wednesday through Friday being the time of heaviest usage (see Figure 4.2).

Most students reported using the first two days of the week for the reading of assigned materials, then logging onto the system starting Wednesday and conducting their discussions. These discussions were summarized on Friday, so Saturday was in essence the beginning of a new week.

Login times for the class also showed a great deal of variety. The heaviest usage times were in the evening, a finding made remarkable by the number of complaints regarding the inaccessibility of the DoIT server during those hours. Generally the FirstClass server was not available between the hours of 3:00 AM and 5:00 AM, as this was the time data was backed up on the system (see Figure 4.3).

Individual students showed a wide variation in usage patterns. Some logged at regular times and/or days, while others had times more evenly spread out. I have chosen James, Vickie, Philip and Machelle as representatives of different usage periods (Figures 4.4 through 4.11). Each individual students’ graph is found in Appendix H. The instructors’ may be found in Appendix G.

Students in CAVE 641 exhibited widely varying patterns for posting their contributions to the course. Some, such as Machelle (Figures 4.10 and 4.11) and James (Figures 4.4 and 4.5) were present more often at a particular hour or day. Others, such as Philip (Figures 4.8 and 4.9) and Vickie (Figures 4.6 and 4.7), showed more distributed contribution patterns. These differences were accommodated by the medium, and most likely made class participation possible for those living far away and/or working full time.

Three of the original twenty two students enrolled in CAVE 641 eventually dropped the course, each for a different but telling reason. Alice was never able to overcome the technical challenges of setting up the computer conferencing software, and dropped the course early in the second week. Ameporn left the course due to a heavy semester work load in other classes, though she also mentioned that it was difficult to communicate in her second language on a text—based system. Edwin left active participation with the course after medical problems made it impossible to sit at the computer.

Each of these departures demonstrates a barrier that limits access to computer conferencing. Certainly, Alice’ experience with the difficult technical side of computer—mediated communication speaks to those not comfortable with new technology. The almost total reliance upon English also serves to exclude those like Ameporn who are not comfortable in a second language. And Edwin’s case points to the many physical limitations that can inhibit computer usage. Any measurement of democratic participation in CC must also remember those not able to have voice in the new medium, a convictions brought out in a number of participants’ comments such as the following:

Phil thanks for the update. Definitely warrants some thinking when only the rich can afford all this "free" information.

Mary Helen

The vast majority of interactions taking place within the discussion conferences were dealing with the course topics. Conference discussion groups during the 11th and 12th weeks used these areas largely for topic discussion. Little purely social interaction took place, though exchanges were often informal in tone, as shall be shown below. The work of the course was paramount, with 83% of the interactions dealing with topic discussion (Table 4.5).

Participation was relatively even among participants. I have chosen the South conference as illustration, for it contained James, who posted the greatest number of messages in CAVE 641 (Appendix E). Yet even in this conference there was strong representation by all members of the group. Dr Hayes and Dr. Gibson contributed, but as peers instead of discussion leaders; only Dr. Gibson initiated a thread, and it was a comment on earlier discussion. Of the 110 total messages posted Weeks

11 and 12 in the South Conference, 89 were concerned with topic discussion. The distribution of these messages are reported in Table 4.6.

Vickie was not a member of this group, and her interactions were limited to a single aspect of the discussion. The high number of group member contributions is especially significant in light of the original requirement to students. The course syllabus specified that students needed to post two messages per week. In South, we can see most members greatly exceeded that requirement, a phenomenon repeated in the other two discussion conferences. Also, instructor contributions were shorter in length than most of the conference members, further diminishing their roles in maintaining discussion.

Less collaboration took place throughout the course than had originally been conceived. FirstClass allows for the existence of collaborative documents, postings which allow for a group of students to make changes and additions to a work in progress. It had been assumed that these documents would be used throughout the course for group papers and discussion summaries, but in fact were tried and discarded

by all conference groups. Machelle’s response is typical:

I hate to admit this, but I really don't like the collaborative document. It seems really disorganized and difficult to do anything with. I vote for just setting up a schedule by week for the person responsible for our weekly group posting. Machelle

Indeed, all groups did choose to have designated individuals do the summaries for the weeks discussion. There were no attempts of joint work using collaborative documents at any time in the semester.

Another promising sort of collaboration involved the use of the synchronous "chat" feature found in FirstClass. It was envisioned that students could conduct discussions of materials in a more conversational manner using chat, as well as working together on semester projects. The difficulty of logging on to the FirstClass server kept this option from ever being used as a regular method of interaction during the course (Appendix D). Also, individual’s schedules were often so different that groups could not find a time to agree upon for synchronous interaction (Appendix H). Chats became occasional occurrences between students and teachers who happened to be online at the same time. I was able to use chat as a way of soliciting questions from students and generally checking in on their experiences with FirstClass.

Equity was found in the manner in which all participants interacted in CAVE 641. There were two telling categories for this interaction; Personal Exchange and Social Interactions. Students and instructors often found themselves addressing each other personally, even though interacting asynchronously. Also, the exchanges were frequently informal in nature, with some evidences of lightness in tone that transcended the formality often found in educational environments. These qualities helped to underscore the equality felt by participants.

Personally directed interaction was a feature of the community of CAVE 641. Often, the posting of a participant in specific response to another participant’s comment or point, sometimes to take issue with it and other times to voice support and agreement. Interactions were not broadcast to everyone, or specifically aimed at the instructors. There was, rather, an understood peer audience that was often conceived of as a specific person.

Personal exchanges were a large part of interactions in both examined time periods. Participants in Weeks 3 and 4 addressed comments to specific persons 34% of the time, while in Weeks 11 and 12 that number grew to 43%. Closely linked to social interactions, the increase of personal exchanges showed a direct connection to one another as discussion peers.

Another aspect of equality is found in the less formal manners in which students and instructors interacted. In CAVE 641 a good deal of "bantering" and general playfulness was found in a number of the interactions. Certainly this was not a dry academic learning atmosphere, but rather one that took on less formality, both from the students and, in the following example, the instructors.

I was really struck by T & P's chapter seven.

My reading between the lines suggests that

learning cannot occur without developing.

I realize that they are mostly concerned with

transformational learning. Nevertheless, I

think it tends to minimize "lower" levels of

learning. Acquiring a new skill or understanding

a new concept may not shape the way a person

lives, but it is still valuable in its own right. I get

the feeling that those pushing for transformation

are a little on the snooty side. Any takers out there?

George

Ah yes, the snottiness of those into transformational learning. It is interesting that you point out the supposed value placed on transformational learning and the minimal attention to that which doesn't live up to the 'standards' of transformational learning. There is a definite 'looking down one's nose' in some circles at learning which might be described as more instrumental. Appropriate - I think not. Does the snottiness exist ? Yes, it is alive and well in the School of Education!

But can we combine, mix and match?

Both Drs. Gibson and Hayes frequently employed a less formal tone when engaged in discussion threads. Students also interacted in social and personal manners throughout the course. This thread continues and show examples of the kind of respect and easy familiarity that had developed by the later parts of the course.

I tend to agree with George a lot this week...

I've learned a lot of defined concepts and cognitive strategies (higher order learning stuff) which certainly were not transformational in my case. 'Don't use it or even think about it much.

Probably my most important academic transformational experiences were simply learning to read and compute as a 19 year old tech college student and "successful graduate" of the Milwaukee Public School System.

Yes, I certainly think we can learn without developing, orshould we say transforming, since all learning implies some kind of growth to me. I don't think most of us would want to look down our nose at educators who work in settings other than a four year degree program or grad school, either. It occurs to me that maybe there's more involved in transformation than the content of the course or intent of the educator. If I take a course in basic home repairs at MATC, I will learn some valuable skills, but I probably won't be transformed. However, what if a young person who didn't do well in high school and is woking at McDonald's successfully completes the same course and with that skill and knowledge finds a job as an apartment manager with free or reduced rent? Might his/her image of school, self and/or future be significantly changed? Would this be a transformation even if the instructor had not intended to do more than teach technical skills? What if a university professor attempts to challenge and broaden the assumptions of his/her students, but some of them resist and refuse to consider any view other than their own? Has the professor failed at transformation? Is either educator more or less valuable than the other? Perhaps at least as much depends on what the individual brings to the program as what the educator plans; as in parenting, maybe we can't take all the credit or all the blame.

Betty V makes some interesting points that I will try to extend ever so slightly.

She writes:

"I don't think most of us would want to look down our nose at educators who work in settings other than a four year degree program or grad school, either".

Agreed, but I do believe that vocational/technical and community education don't have the prestege that the 4-year colleges and grad schools do. For a variety of reasons, it is considered more desirable to teach people how to talk about something rather than to teach em what to do with the information that they are being taught how to talk about.

I have no evidence and am uncertain that I can even verbalize my logic, but I suspect that the likelihood of transformation via education is greater at the vocational/technical and community ed levels than at the four-years and grad schools. I think that it may take less to have a meaningful life impact for some members of the populations served by these institutions. This is certainly not intended as a slight to the WTCS--began at MATC-Milwaukee.

As Betty V. noted, someone else might benefit significantly from the MATC course as contrasted to her.

Good points, Betty. You make me wonder: As a teacher, should I try to take a neutral stance on transformation. Or should I promote it? Does transformation occur because of me or in spite of me? Any thoughts?

JIm,

I'll try to take the other side of the coin to your suspicion in the previous posting. There may be other factors that make the Vo-tech education more "transformative". First, a fellow classmate who is a counselor at MATC, stated that the average age of MATC students is 29. These people have been in the work force for a few years and are returning to school. It could be that they are using school to transform themselves.(i.e. a new career, hobby, etc.) Second, I think that the transformation that we are talking about here is related mostly to careers. That is, the education leads to the transformation, a career choice. I would suspect that the difference between taking 4-5 years here or 1-2 years at MATC produces the same types of transformations.

Maybe this is actually an explanation of your suspicions.

Tom

Tom,

I agree, there frequently is a more immediate career impact as a result of participating in MATC programs (1-2 years) vs UWM (4-5 years).

The tech colleges also collect & publish followup data (I'm certain that the UW Systems does also) which shows the high percentage of folks working within the career area that they were trained for. I have no data, but I suspect that the percentage of folks working in their career area is higher for tech college alumni than for UWM folks.

This recnt thread is academic/career in nature and in contrast to the learning on a deep emotional level that Betty H. referred to in a recent posting. Could there be two categories of transformative learning?

I think that academic/career transformations are appropriate areas for adult educators to intervene. I consider most other areas to be beyond the scope of an educator's appropriate role. 'Sounds rather cold but teaching psych I have students talk to me about things that I wish that they wouldn't more often than I'd like.

In the first weeks of the course many participants had been somewhat unwilling to interact personally with other students, choosing rather to merely answer questions directly as posed by the instructors. In the above example taken later in the semester all discussants show a mixture of content discussion with a friendly, supportive and social style. All three conferences developed a friendly identity by the end of the course.

As noted above, the importance of a virtual location that allowed for more purely social interaction was also designed for CAVE 641 at the beginning of the semester. This conference was named the Corner Cafe and defined as a place where less important chats could take place. The use of Corner Cafe conference started slowly, but by the fifth week several participants were using it regularly. Topics included discussions of Wisconsin football, the best Halloween candy, and various aspects of Wisconsin winter weather. In addition, conference announcements and more serious topics note related to the course material were discussed here.

Postings in many areas carried the personalities of the senders, and became a regular part of the interactions. It was not uncommon for the latest antics of James’ new kitten to be included in his signature, or to have some small report of life on Linda’s farm. Messages often took advantage of "emoticons" such as "smiley" faces (":)") and frowns (":(") depending on the mood of the sender. George and others expressed frustration through the use of number characters such as "*!!$(!*!." In all, a sense of style developed throughout the interactions of the course.

One of the most formal barriers of traditional education is that between student and teacher. Distance between teacher and student is often created by the traditional evaluative power held solely by instructors. Also, instructors’ positions of authority are reinforced by their voices being the majority heard in the classroom, and their position of sole academic authority. In this environment, these traditional roles were changed in some ways, leading to final evidence of a more equitable environment.

The experience of CAVE 641 bore out many researcher’s perceptions of the reduced role of the instructor’s voice in class (Everett & Ahern, 1994; Gunawardena, 1992; Harasim et al., 1995). This is seen by a simple tally of student and instructor messages posted throughout the semester (Figure 4.12). Rather than acting as dominators of class discourse, the instructors were able to allow students to carry a large part of the burden during the conduct of the class.

While retaining a clear leadership role, Drs. Gibson and Hayes were also able to participate in discussions and often express opinions. Yet the instructors did not completely relinquish their institutional duties. Each week began with a posting outlining the assigned readings for the week and posing questions as initiators of discussion. This served to maintain a clear sense of design and purpose throughout the course. A comparison of week outlines from the beginning and end of the semester show that little has changed as far as the guiding role assumed by Drs. Gibson and Hayes.

Overview

The readings and activities for this week are intended to (a) help each of us understand how our own experiences have shaped our learning preferences as well as our personal theories or beliefs about learning, (b) increase our understanding of each other as learners in this class, (c) help us understand adult learners in general by using the concept of learning style to distinguish among different learning orientations, (d) provide some ideas that may be useful for collaborative learning situations, in particular your small group discussions, and (e) make some connections between learning style and collaborative learning. A rather ambitious agenda.

The readings will introduce or remind you of two different conceptualizations of learning style. Daniele's article focuses on global and analytic ways of processing information, while Kolb's learning style inventory (discussed by Sugarman) addresses preferences for active/reflective and concrete/abstract ways of learning. Keep in mind that the whole area of learning style theory is rather controversial; some research suggests, for example, that styles may not be all that consistent for any individual, and as the Sugarman article indicates, there are some weaknesses in the instruments used to assess learning styles. Despite these issues, personally I find learning style theory to be very helpful in clarifying potential differences among adult learners, without necessarily dividing people into absolute categories.

The Smith article is a "how-to" oriented piece on learning collaboratively. Interestingly, along with all the emphasis on adults as self-directed learners, there is also the belief that adults learn well through collaboration with other learners. Might be interesting to talk about whether there's any contradiction here? In any event, I do find that even adults often need some guidance to make collaborative learning work well. This might be due to the pretty individualistic nature of most K-12 and higher education, which doesn't give us lots of practice in collaboration.

I'll let you decide what to make of the Wylde article (and yes, that's the whole thing!).

Readings (all in the reader): Flannery (1993), Smith, Sugarman (the Kolb inventory is included after this article), Wylde

Activities

1. Post your learning bio summary in the Papers folder

2. Reintroduce yourself to the rest of your new small discussion group. Read each other's learning bio summaries.

3. Begin your small group discussion!

4. Remember that your group needs to post a summary of its discussion on Friday.

***You will not be expected to report "answers" to the discussion questions. If you talk about other issues (hopefully relevant to the topic!), that's fine. Summarize what was most important from your discussion.

Questions for Discussion (choose any, all or create your own questions)

1. After you've read the learning bio summaries for your group members, talk about your similarities and differences. Can you relate your learning style preferences to certain experiences or do they seem to be more inherent personality characteristics? How are your personal theories of learning related to your own learning preferences and experiences?

2. How might you use learning style theory in your own work as an adult educator? How can you use it as an individual learner?

3. What effects might individual learning styles have on the process of collaborative learning? Given the learning styles of your group members, what might help the group learn together?

4. How applicable is Smith's article to collaborative learning in this type of computer-mediated discussion? What ideas are relevant, and what ideas aren't? How might the process of collaborative learning be affected by this technology?

OVERVIEW

It seems that I should start at the end as I think about what to write. The last two sentences in Chapter Seven of Tennant and Pogson (one of the readings for the week) states "The self as a fixed, stable and harmonious entity is replaced by the notion of self-construction as an ongoing process. The self in effect stands in a dialectical relationship to experience, both forming and being formed by the experience it encounters." (p. 169) There has always been an emphasis on experience in adult education. Our authors remind us that at the most basic level, instructors may use the learners' past experience as a point of departure, building on these past experiences. Instructors may however move beyond this point to building linkages between current experiences at home, work, in the community and the content to be considered, perhaps even adapting the material these experiences. A third possible way to link experience and learning is through the design of experiences for the entire learning group to experience and reflect on, e.g. simulations and, lastly, to use experience as the primary source of learning. Twelve step programs come to mind. As the authors note - experience is present in each of the 'uses' of experience but the ultimate aim is to move learners beyond their experience. Drawing on Dewey's Experience and Education it's an interesting chapter. The final section on learning from experience, critically reflecting on one's experience, on the assumptions which undergird thoughts and actions, as well as the accuracy and validity of these assmuptions, followed by the reconstitution (to use Brookfields's term) of assumptions provides a nice transition to the reading by Clark on transformatiove education. (Yes, I just suggested an order for your reading - optional advice.)

Carolyn Clark begins with a definition of tranformational learning - learning that produces far-reaching changes that have a significant impact on the learner's subsequent experiences. She exposes transformational learning's humanistic underpinnings and then proceeds to help the reader understand the contributions of Mezirow, Freire and Daloz to our understanding of this important concept in adult education. One of the most striking differences you'll note is the emphasis on personal development found in Mezirow's concept in stark contrast to Paulo Freire's emphasis on social change and political action. The construction of knowledge by individuals and the ability of individuals, as individuals or as a collective, to change are

themes evident throughout all three perspectives on transformational learning. The article is well written - perhaps one of the best pieces on the topic if clear and concise are your criteria.

The Daloz article is a delight, is referred to often in casual adult ed cocktail party talk, and may provide many of us an opportunity for critical reflection and perhaps even a transformative experience.

READINGS: (in my suggested order)

Chapter Seven - Tennant and Pogson

Clark, Tranformational Learning (second to last reading in the Reader)

Daloz, The Story of Gladys who refused to grow: A morality tale for mentors (last reading in reader)

ACTIVITIES:

1. The usual pithy comments should be posted :)

2. Continue to work on your final synthesis paper. All questions gratefully received and willingly responded to.

3. Take a little time for yourself in this hectic season - a walk, a jog, (also allows you to eat more if you burn more off!)

QUESTIONS:

A million questions occur to me but the one that continues to come to the fore asks "What characterized your most transformative educational experience?" I guess this question percolates to the top for me because it causes me first to reflect on what experiences have been transforming, then to recount why it was transforming and what about the situation made it so. This is not to say we won't head in a million different directions, but I have alt least provided a starter culture :)

I'm reminded of several of your final projects that deal with individuals in transition and in transformation. You'll find some interesting food for thought. Don't hesitate to share your munchies.

Still, as noted above, Drs. Gibson and Hayes were able to join topic discussions as peers, relaxing into the less formal atmosphere of CAVE 641 and contributing points in discussions as fellow inquirers rather than merely teachers. Students were able to take advantage of the instructors’ greater experience in some cases, yet also felt free to question and debate their points. There was no analog to the classroom lecture in CAVE 641; the instructors rather acted as co—inquirers to the issues of the class. Perhaps they were more competent in some of the areas, but the students interacted with them as equals in the course.

These data show that many aspects of computer conferencing acted to make CAVE 641 more equitable. A more equally accessible environment was made possible by asynchronous interactions available 22 hours per day by CMC. Students were able to interact in personal and informal manners in the textual environments, yet also focused meaningfully on the course content. Finally, the instructors enjoyed a more equitable relationship with the students, even though their traditional evaluative roles were maintained. As participants in discussions, Drs. Gibson and Hayes were addressed and participated as equals.

The limits of equitable access were found in the problems three of the initially enrolled students dealt with. Computer skills, especially those adequate to interact using CMC over the Internet, represented a major barrier to one participant. Language and physical stamina were other obstacles to access. For those who were able to use the technology, CAVE 641 was a more even ground for interaction. It cannot be forgotten, however, that not all were able to join in.

This study has address three questions regarding the conduct of CAVE 641 in a computer conferencing environment. The primary goal of the study is to determine if the manner in which the class was conducted resulted in a more democratic learning environment. To determine this, issues of student expectations, participant mastery of the software and actions in the conference were considered.

Students approached the class with a mixture of fear and anticipation. Previous experience with computers led many to expect computer ‘glitches’ to greatly interfere with the course. Also, many say CMC as being potentially cold and impersonal. Others expressed interest in learning to use this new form of distance learning technology, though few had ever used CMC in an educational manner before.

It was found that after the initial weeks students were largely able to master the requirements of the FirstClass software. Evidence was found in the manner in which they were able to post messages and maintain treads that the basics of the software were being learned. Learning strategies were also developed. Concerns of message overload and addiction to the medium were eventually controlled by the institution of smaller discussion groups as well as students adaptation to the 24 hour nature of the class. Though many expressed missing the physical closeness of a face to face classroom, there developed a closeness in the class as the semester progressed. Thus, most students were able to master the medium and concentrate on the issues of the course.

Democratic action was evinced in two ways; responsible action by the participants and equality of voice among all. From the formation of the small discussion groups students took control of their learning environment, organizing and conducting the topic discussions cooperatively and autonomously. Students showed a feeling of community in a number of ways, from reporting to the group that they would be away for a period of days to sharing responsibility for the conduct of discussion.

Equality was evidenced by the nature of the medium itself, which allowed the participation of students who may not have been able to take the course due to distance or job responsibilities. Students showed a great deal of evidence that they regarded one another as peers, enjoying an informal and respectful style of interaction with one another. The instructors also acted as peers rather than authority figures, easily joining in topic discussions without dominating or leading them.

Computer conferencing in this instance showed many ways in which democratic action could take place. It acted to provide an alternative to the tradition learning environment in which each participant could act as a peer while meaningfully conducting a graduate seminar. While few called computer conferencing a replacement for the face to face classroom, it was seen to have an ability to create a powerful learning environment for the purpose of cooperative inquiry.

Chapter 5

Summary and Recommendations

In answering questions about the democratic nature of computer—mediated communications in education, the following approach was employed. A graduate class emphasizing adult education was observed as they sought to participate in a course taught entirely via computer conferencing. Data were collected via questionnaires and, most significantly, from copies of the actual text interactions that took place in this virtual environment. These interactions were then analyzed to determine the presence of democratic actions within the conduct of the class.

The philosophical foundations for this study lie in the tradition of American pragmatism and its construction of democracy. Fundamental to democratic action are the complimentary ideals of social action and individual responsibility. These qualities arise from the daily actions of individuals’ social actions as were viewed and analyzed in this study.

Participants using computer conferencing in CAVE 641 showed an ability, perhaps even a tendency, to act in manners that were democratic. In describing this phenomenon, I have focused on three areas of the student’s experience; expectations about CMC they had before the start of the semester, the amount of time they took to become comfortable using this medium, and specific evidence of democratic action in the resulting class. In all areas there were findings of significance regarding the democratic conduct of the course.

Students entered into this virtual classroom with a mixture of excitement and fear. While only KimMarie specifically mentioned democracy, many hoped for a more participatory class than they were accustomed to in traditional schooling. There was generally a feeling that this environment could provide easy, convenient access to all class members and allow for some sort of cooperative environment.

Balancing these hopes were fears born from earlier experiences with computer conferencing, both from direct experience in earlier classes and in more general encounters with electronic mail and other telecommunications technologies. Many were fearful of "glitches" in the use of computers. Students using CMC have generally had to endure baffling protocols and unexplainable errors as a matter of course; combining these difficulties with the pressure of a university course was of great concern. Visions of the semester slipping away while software problems were being fixed seemed to be in the backs of many minds.

Beyond technical fears were interpersonal issues. Many felt the class could entail hours of isolated work time interacting only with an impersonal computer screen. Many felt this loss of the "face-to-face" nature of the traditional classroom would create a sterile environment devoid of those human gestures and easy conversational exchanges that are such an important part of human interaction. Some went further, fearing that the medium and its needs would dominate the course, leaving no time for learning.

These fears may be inevitable at this time in computer integration in education. Certainly the technology itself has not yet developed into a reliable and invisible method of communication. Yet students’ hopes for greater voice in the course point to a perception the computer may indeed facilitate a more democratic and inclusive environment for education. In this expressed hope I found a desire from the students for more voice and autonomy in this particular class. It was in these early comments I found the first seeds for democratic action.

The use of CMC did seem to dominate the actions of the students, especially the early stages of the semester. Many expressed frustration with the lack of face-to-face communication throughout the course, especially when referring to difficulties in communication with one another. The act of discussion in this medium spread over periods of days and even weeks, and seemed to James and others an inefficient way to conduct a seminar—type class.

Also mentioned by a number of participants was the overload of messages that appeared on screen. This was especially true in the beginning weeks of the course when all content interaction took place in one conference area. Students were frustrated with the number of postings, as well as the length of some of those postings. It became difficult to find time to read all that had been posted and then reply to their points and bring up one’s own ideas. This situation improved with the advent of smaller discussion sub—conferences, but remained a constant complaint. Perhaps it was this large number of messages that led some to feel addicted to the medium, unable to walk past their computers without logging in and checking for new postings. Most students’ log in profiles showed a tendency to connect multiple days of the week, perhaps to avoid being overwhelmed by new postings to be read.

Evidence of a mastery of many of these problems also surfaced throughout the semester. As students became more adept with the threading feature of the software they were better able to organize postings into discussions that flowed and had a degree of continuity. Also, the instructors’ gentle reminders of message lengths became a sort of running joke among the participants, but kept the postings shorter and more readable. Early postings also had a tendency to consist of a number of subjects, while later each individual topic was given its own post. It was this developed fluency that enable democratic action to develop.

Perhaps these first two focus areas could be said to concern themselves more with the factors surrounding the possibility of democratic action in CAVE 641. But did democratic action truly take place during the semester we were all together? I found evidence of a wide variety of actions that could be so labeled. As I read the data it seemed that there were two basic categories that arose in which to classify democratic action; responsibility, dealing with actions taken to support the group, and equality, factors that showed all participants enjoyed a level ground for interaction.

Students took the responsibility for creating a sense of community if various conferences throughout the FirstClass environment. Early technical problems were sympathized with and those having difficulty interacting online found understanding and comfort from their class peers. Also, the majority of postings were addressed to a group of people rather than one teacher or an impersonal computer. The discussion interactions, especially in the small group folders, took on the character of human and personal interaction. Members were sure to welcome one another to the conference areas, and took a great deal of time considering and answering one another’s points. Often, exchanges showed an informal and personal flavor that created an more comfortable environment. CAVE 641, then, became a community through the nurture of participants who when beyond information processing to attempt to connect to one another as inquirers.

The nature of this course and its organization put a great deal more emphasis upon the students’ self direction. The very act of logging on and keeping current with the class showed this quality, devoid as CAVE 641 was of the usual structure of the weekly class meeting. Weekly discussions and summaries took place largely through the efforts of the students and their pursuit of individual interests. Direct instructor intervention only came in instances where no conversation was taking place, instances that were rare throughout the semester. The success of the course came through the autonomous actions of all participants.

Perhaps of most importance to democratic action is the ability of all participant to act as equals. In CMC, equality is enhanced by the accessibility and inclusiveness of the computer conferencing environment. Traditional school structure places paramount importance upon a student’s ability to physically be in a given place at a given time in order to participate in a class. CAVE 641 included students who lived a great distance from the University of Wisconsin—Madison, and also who worked and had other responsibilities that make class attendance difficult. Access to the course through the medium of CMC largely eliminated these barriers and allowed participants to have greater control over when and how they interacted with the class. The widely variance of login times illustrates how different the needs and style of the students were.

A disappointment in the course was the relative lack of collaboration among the various participants. It was hoped that equality of access to CMC would result in students finding ways to work together on papers and research projects throughout the year. That this did not occur may be at least partially blamed upon the difficulties students had in connecting to the Madison server during the prime evening hours. Due to this problem it was risky at best to schedule meeting times to take advantage of the synchronous features of FirstClass. Furthering the lack of enthusiasm for collaboration was the rather clumsy manner in which FirstClass creates collaborative documents. Those who tried to use these forms quickly abandoned them as inadequate for the purposes of discussion. Students in general were able to discuss actively in CAVE 641, but did not collaborate on creating materials that were to be turned in as part of the course requirements.

A most striking evidence in the equality of all participants was the changed role of the instructors. Instructors in CAVE 641 contributed only about a quarter of the messages posted to the conferences, the rest belonging to students’ discussions and concerns. There were few instances where the authority of the instructors’ was appealed to, the most lengthy exception being James’ concern over the "trespassing" of another class member. For the most part, instructors contributed to discussions as peers, and were able to concentrate on contributing their expertise to existing discussions. While the instructors did maintain the authority of setting the agenda for the class as well as determining the final grades, their actions were more often as learned peers interacting with other participants in the CMC environment.

These findings lead me to conclude democratic action did take place in the conduct of CAVE 641, and to assign the reason for this action to the method of computer conferencing chosen to conduct the class. The unique attributes that make up this medium acted to facilitate a democratic learning environment by allowing all participants equal voice throughout the conduct of the class. I would not conclude that CMC caused democracy to grow, but rather that it facilitated that result, in combination with the actions of all participants.

The priority of educational technology throughout this century is one of the efficient delivery of instruction. As such, it has supported the "teaching as telling" model of instruction that has characterized most educational institutions in America. This study has sought to offer an alternative view, one where educational technologies are used to support learner interaction and communication. Rather than defining a more "effective" method of transfer, I have shown how CMC could facilitate a virtual environment in which the social creation of knowledge could flourish. By using the perspectives of American pragmatism this study has re—considered the role of technology to that of one that facilitates conversation, equality, and indeed democracy. Educators seeking a guide to use in creating their own virtual classrooms will find data and inspiration in the actions of all the subjects studied here.

This study has also shown that a cohort of students and instructors new to a difficult technology could and would master its use and create an environment where education could and did take place. Throughout the difficult times of getting home computers set up with the software, mastering new styles of interactions, and learning to speak without the human voice, the participants of this course chose to use CMC’s powers to create new possibilities for their own exploration with the course content matter. This dissertation, then, shows that students and instructors are willing to explore new ways of interacting if it means they can gain greater access to one another, and are rewarded with strong, unique democratic educational experiences.

This study has contributed to the literature regarding the relationship of democracy and education (Dewey 1916; Gutmann 1987; Snauwaert 1993; Warehime 1993; Hostetler 1995) by examining the claim that CMC is a democratic environment for instruction (Harasim 1987; Kaye 1989; Mason and Kaye 1990; Gunawardena 1992; Holden and Wedman 1993; Burge 1994; Everett and Ahern 1994; Hardy, Hodgson et al. 1994; McComb 1994; Harasim, Hiltz et al. 1995). First, democracy itself was carefully defined within an American context as a combination of consensual rule and personal responsibility (Wiebe 1995)(Wiebe, 1995; Dewey, 1916; Gutmann, 1987). Using these two qualities as a basis, a theory of democratic education was then developed and applied to a computer—mediated environment. The interaction, perhaps collision, of the theory and practice of schooling was apparent when compared to the changed possibilities brought about by CMC. This study showed that democratic action indeed occurred within the computer conferenced environment of CAVE 641, and suggests this is due to alteration in student relationships to learning, instructors and one another.

Empirically, the findings of this study show that students were able to attain mastery of the medium and act as responsible and equal partners in the educational process. This study expands earlier speculations of increased democracy in CMC by showing how students were able to have better access, control, and equity in the learning environment. Physical characteristics such as the removal of time and place allowed students to tailor class participation to fit within their lives and locations. All voices were given equal opportunity to contribute to class discussion. Students showed an ability to act as responsible and active learners. Finally, in CAVE 641 a community of learners was formed that was unique to many of the participants’ educational experiences. These findings suggest that CMC can allow for greater democracy in the availability and practice of education.

This study also contributes to the formation of a qualitative methodology for the study of educational computer conferencing. Rather than relying upon more standard methods of quantitative studies which concentrate more on the statistical phenomena of CMC (Burge, 1994). I have endeavored to develop a method in which the message content of each participant was the primary source of data. This content analysis developed a technology for capturing data and using a database for analysis. It also used unique features of CMC such as threading and conference structures to provide a background for participant interaction.

There are a number of implications for future use of CMC in education that result from this study. First, when planning to use a medium such as CMC, there is a need for skills training at the outset of the class and support throughout the semester. Students entered CAVE 641 fearful of the experience due to past failures with computers and experimental educational methods. Training in the software was essential, especially in a hands on manner. A great deal of time and frustration was saved by meeting in a computer laboratory and making sure all participants could perform the basic functions of the software. Also, the availability of 24-hour support through the main campus computer help line at DoIT solved a number of problems that allowed the course to continue uninterrupted. The patterns of use measured in the students of CAVE 641 showed the importance of full time support.

Technical ability with the software was found to be only the first part of participants’ adaptation to the medium of CMC. An awareness of the strategic difficulties for novice students in adapting to the medium is also important. Various factors such as the overload of messages, development of a text—based communicative style, and formation of community kept the course from beginning quickly. The conduct of educational CMC requires a period of adaptation, especially if the participant population is new to the use of this medium.

Reading and responding online takes a great deal of thought and time, and it became apparent early in the study that the size of discussion groups needed to be kept fairly small. This enabled students to keep track of discussion and be able to contribute their own thoughts without feeling they were repeating other students’ contribution. The initial use of a single conference for discussion left many students feeling like spectators. The final discussion group sizes of six to seven students allowed for all to contribute to the discussion.

In spite of these adjustments, most participants in CAVE 641 commented on the increased amount of time this course took in comparison to the classroom. Reading and writing were seen to take a greater amount of effort than face to face discussion, and the asynchronous manner in which these conversations took place left some questioning the efficiency of CMC in education. Most participants felt the need to login to FirstClass at least three times a week, and many became overwhelmed by the amount of reading that awaited them. Adjustments came with the class requirements of shorter messages and careful use of threading in a discussion. Still, most participants left CAVE 641 feeling CMC was more time—intensive than traditional teaching.

This study has argued that CMC is a more democratic environment. In practice, this means that all participants must expect to perform different roles than they are used to in educational practice. Students cannot sit passively and listen to a professor lecture; in CMC they are called upon to perform more autonomous and independent roles as learners. Also, instructors find their roles greatly altered. Rather than enjoying the role of being a classroom leader, instructors in CMC are just another line of text. As students are called upon to contribute more to their basic learning, professors contribute less and guide more. Most often, Drs. Gibson and Hayes acted as expert contributors to discussions rather than lecturers.

Perhaps the greatest lesson for practice from this study is the need to be flexible and aware when using a novel method of instruction. Many small corrections were needed early in the course in response to the manner in which students interacted with the computer conferenced environment. Group sizes were altered, strategies for collaboration abandoned and other such changes were made in response to the manner in which participants acted. In this new educational environment, the greatest contribution to practice this study can make is to recommend that instructors remain flexible.

"The way a question is asked limits and disposes the ways in which any answer to it — right or wrong — may be given" (Langer 1948, page 3). The greatest question I am left with at the end of this study is this; was I predisposed to find democratic action by the formation of my research questions? Did I find democracy because I asked to see if it was there? Perhaps this study really was a measurement of some other quality. An objection could be raised that the actions of this study’s participants were not democratic action at all, but rather examples of computer supported collaborative work (CSCW), a field with its own literature and research agenda (Greif 1988; Baecker 1993; Harasim 1993). One of the findings in this study was that the goals of the student participants in this course were not collaborative, and that in itself may be enough to dismiss the its interpretation from a CSCW framework. But the question for me remains—was my mind made up before the study began?

I would have liked to have been a more neutral observer, to have conducted this study from the standpoint of grounded—theory, as free of pre—determined categories as possible (Glaser and Strauss 1967). While my experience and leanings perhaps expected democratic action within CMC, a more careful look at the data itself may have revealed other patterns of behavior. Who dominated discussion? How did students argue, of why did they not seem to have more contentious disagreements? Was this because of a sense of community or an inability to speak deeply through a text—only medium? I fear that my search for democracy may have obscured other phenomena.

I would also have liked to been more involved with the class as a participant. While this may seem the opposite of my desire for neutrality, it actually speaks to being closer to the data. The very thrust of this study was formed by my experiences in a computer—mediated class as a student; perhaps more would have become had I recreated that role with CAVE 641. The relationship I did have with students was a minor part of this study, yet it was in these very relationships that the most interesting findings occurred.

Still, acknowledging the difficulties presented in performing this study, I remain satisfied with its basic conclusions. Now the door has been opened for others to further examine differences in action within computer mediated environments. Issues of identity, power, access all warrant in—depth examinations. In many ways, this study is wrestling with the problems of a new medium. There are few guidelines available, and if I have taken a mistaken path, I can only hope it was a large and promising error.

At the time of this study, the use of CMC to create educational environments through the use of computer conferencing is still somewhat novel. It represents the combination of two often separated traditions, educational technology and distance education. Each can contribute a large body of literature to the problems of computer conferencing, and yet each must also expand its own perspective to include one another and to go beyond educational delivery as its sole methodology. As further uses of computer conferencing will stretch the boundaries of institutional schooling, so too must the vistas explored by educational technology and distance education expand. Researchers need to become versed in the experiences of both fields in order to accomplish this.

This expansion must also include a broader view of education and learning research itself. By taking a pragmatic philosophical base informed by critical theory, this study was able to include aspects of the educational environment that could not be accounted for through more behaviorist perspectives of educational delivery. Both distance education and educational technology are benefiting from new voices within their respective disciplines, and future researchers should incorporate these views when exploring CMC.

At the time of this study, computer technologies and telecommunications are experiencing enormous and continual technological innovations. The experience of a text—based computer conferencing environment may soon be a historical artifact as telecommunications includes audio and video capabilities. As these become available, researchers will need to ask how will this effect computer conferencing’s democratic environment, and how will in inhibit it. Is the partial anonymity of text—only interaction a way of creating a more comfortable and even fictitious identity (Stone, 1995; Turkle, 1995)? Would the ability to see and hear one another hinder this effect and perhaps as a result effect the practice of democracy? Certainly claims of the leveling effect of CMC would be called into question by such added media attributes.

Perhaps of greatest interest to me in the conduct of this study was the interaction between the institution of the university and the practice of computer conferencing. The norms of practice found in the American university are certainly called into question by a class such as CAVE 641. The elimination of time and place as controlling factors in the design of a course illustrates the degree to which the practice of the traditional university may be challenged by CMC. Issues of educational quality, student voice, the source and creation of knowledge all may be contested in this new medium. Universities are facing ever increasing enrollments and decreasing financial resources. Can computer conferencing be a truly educational environment that takes on the duties of the university, or will it be a second choice reluctantly chosen as forced alternative? And what perspectives do actions in this new medium give when viewing the tradition of university education? It is the challenge of those working with CMC to explore its new possibilities for education, and the challenge of educational institutions to expand their vistas to accommodate these possibilities.

Bibliography

TO: Students enrolled in CAVE 641 - The Adult Learner

FROM: Chere Campbell Gibson and Elisabeth Hayes

DATE: 1 August 1995

RE: The Course!!

Encl.

Name:

Address

Phone number ( ) (Please indicate if home or work)

Academic department

Degree pursued

What do you hope to accomplish in this course?

What do you hope will happen?

What do you hope won’t happen?

What, if any, are your previous experiences with distance education or self-directed learning?

Please fill in the appropriate blanks

IBM Model: Do you have Windows?

Macintosh model:

Modem - internal or external Baud rate: 2400, 4800, 9600, 14.4 or 28.8?

Name or version of modem communications software?

(If you don’t have communications software, don’t purchase. Low cost alternatives are available)

Name and version of word processing software

Other software you frequently use

Is the computer you will use at home or at work?

Past email experience, if any

Email address, if available

Any questions we can answer?

Any comments or concerns related to the class?

We look forward to seeing you at 8:30 a.m. on September 9, 1995 in Room 267
Teacher education Building, 225. N. Mills Street
(No - it’s not a football weekend!!)

Instructors:

Betty Hayes Chere Gibson

225 N. Mills St - 276 TEB 1300 Linden Dr., rm 127

UW-Madison UW-Madison

Madison, WI 53706 Madison, WI 53706

(608) 263-0774 (608) 262-8611

erhayes@macc.wisc.edu ccgibson@facstaff.wisc.edu

This course is designed as an introductory overview of topics important for professionals concerned with facilitating adult learning. It deals with concepts and information that provide a foundation for understanding the adult as a learner in American society. As time, interests, and talent permit, we will also examine related issues from international perspectives. The focus of the course will be on the application of theory and research to adult learning situations. Course objectives are:

We will have one initial face-to-face class meeting to orient everyone to the course format, computer technology, and other class members. For the remainder of the semester, all interactions will take place through electronic mail. The primary source of content will be the course readings. Every Friday evening, the instructors will post some key ideas and questions as a starting point for discussion of the week's topic. Class participants are expected to read the assigned readings and contribute to an on-line discussion during the week. A summary of the week's discussion will be posted at the end of the week, along with the next week's discussion topics. If appropriate, we may involve a guest facilitator or class members in summarizing or posting questions for discussion. Smaller learning groups will also be formed for more indepth discussion of particular areas of interest.

Please note: required papers may be submitted to the instructors either by electronic mail (to Chere at ccgibson@facstaff.wisc.edu) or in paper version (to Betty at room 276 TEB).

Everyone is expected to make regular contributions to our on-line discussions. Our basic expectation is that each person provide at least two comments in class discussions each week. These comments do not need to be lengthy, but should be thoughtful reactions to the readings or previous discussion. We will ask you to provide a self-evaluation of your participation in the class and small group discussions when you submit your final paper at the end of the course.

Prepare an analysis of yourself as a learner across the lifespan. Use the following questions as a guide for your analysis: What were your early life experiences with learning? What makes learning an exciting and meaningful activity? What makes learning difficult? What do you consider to be the most important learning experience of your life? Why? What do you consider the worst learning experience of your life? Why? How do your previous experiences relate to your current beliefs about learning? How would you describe your preferred way of learning (you can refer to the results of the Kolb learning style inventory included in the reader, if you like)? How do you incorporate your personal learning style into practice?

Your autobiography should be about 4-6 pages in length. We also ask that you prepare a summary (about three computer screens in length) to share on-line with your learning group. The summary should be posted the same day that the paper is due: Friday, September 22nd.

Read one book of literature (fiction or non-fiction) which depicts the development of a person of other than European-American descent, or the development of a person who is lesbian or gay. Examples of potential titles include The Learning Tree by G. Parks and The Women Warrior by M. Kingston.

In a paper of about 8-10 pages, give a brief description of the person, culture, and social context. Describe the person's development, citing examples of this development from the story. Compare and contrast this individual's development with the developmental theories studied. Conclude with the contributions of this story to understanding human development.

During the week of October 27th, we will ask you to share a brief summary of your individual's story with the members of your learning group, and discuss common themes and issues.

At the first class meeting, we will ask everyone to become part of a 4-5 person learning group. The primary purpose of these groups is to give you the opportunity to discuss the relationship of course topics to a specific area of adult education practice or group of learners. Examples of such focus areas might include women; older adults; racial or ethnic minority groups; human resource development; literacy education; community education; distance education; and so on. As a general guideline, we will expect you to make at least one contribution to your learning group's discussion each week. At the end of the course, each group will be asked to prepare a brief summary report of key ideas from their discussion. The report should address the following question: What are the key implications from the adult learning literature for understanding and facilitating learning in your area of practice or with your group of learners? These reports will be posted on-line and used as the basis for our wrap-up discussion during the last week of class. No additional reporting is required.

Several options are acceptable for a brief final synthesis paper (about 8-12 pages). Keep in mind that the purpose of this paper is to analyze and synthesize what you have learned this semester by applying it to a specific program setting or publication. References to specific concepts or learning theories are expected in your paper.

a. Select an actual program conducted for adult learners. Analyze the program in terms of appropriateness based on your knowledge from this course regarding adult learner characteristics and learning theories as they relate to adults.

b. Apply several learning theories or concepts to a specific planning experience for adults. Demonstrate the different implications of each in assumptions, approach, results, and evaluation.

c. Select a single book from popular literature or a film which you think deals with issues related to adult learning. Analyze the work in terms of the learning literature from the course.

d. Select a recent professional publication related to teaching or program planning for adult learners. Evaluate its merits, drawing on the learning literature from the course.

You may select the weighting we will give to each of the above activities in determining your course grade. The grade weight ranges for each activity are indicated below:

When you submit your final paper, submit a list of all activities and select your weighting for each activity, in multiples of 5, within the range indicated. Your total number of points must equal 100.

We will use the following criteria in evaluating your papers:

Two texts are available at the University Bookstore:

1. Merriam, S.B. & Caffarella, R.S. (1991). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

2. Tennant, M. & Pogson, P. (1995). Learning and change in the adult years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

A packet of bound readings will be sold at the initial face-to-face meeting of the course on Saturday, September 9th. A bibliography of these readings is attached.

Taking a course at a distance through computer conferencing presents its own rewards and challenges. You will find this learning mode allows you to attend class whenever you wish, day or night, seven days a week. Each time you "join" the "GROUP" you will find that others have responded to your comments and brought up new aspects of topics that you haven’t thought about. You can use computer conferencing to synthesize the readings and activities you are involved in while you reflect upon how they apply to your personal and professional world. Also, you are developing new kinds of communication and computer skills through this "electronic network" experience.

However, learning on—line has its drawbacks, too. Because of its unusual availability, you may find it doesn’t easily fit into your schedule as a regular class might. You may discover that it becomes difficult to carry on several conversations simultaneously or that your have difficulty processing all of the information you receive. And, it may be disconcerting to express your opinions in text form only, without having a clear mental picture of who is "listening." Also, you may have difficulty navigating the structure of the computer conference — understanding just where to post your comments, meet with a group, ask questions, and submit your assignment. This section focuses on just those issues.

You must fit the computer conferencing aspect of the course into your busy lifestyle. We’ve designed the course so that it will take about the same amount of on—line participation time as you would spend in a normal classroom course over a semester. So, plan on spending between two and three hours "logged on" every week, just as you would spend time in class. Also, you must find time to do the readings and assignments outside of this.

The on—line discussions will be far more enjoyable if you spend that time in three or four sittings during the week. This will allow you to post your opinions and get feedback on ideas, rather that just reading after the fact what everyone else has said. In other words, the on—line course is more interactive to the extent you frequently read and contribute.

It is a good idea to make at least one contribution each time you are on—line. Part of your course grade is active, thoughtful messages in the computer conference. You should plan to make an average of 2 contributions a week to the discussion, sometimes more or less depending on your interest and familiarity with the topic at hand.

Length isn’t particularly desired in these notes, rather their benefit to the current discussion, the richness of their ideas, and the extent to which they "weave" into what others have been saying. The next section contains specific suggestions for communicating.

Here are some tips and advise which will make your experience with a computer mediated course more meaningful and productive.

Should you read all of the "unread" messages before making your comment? Yes! You don’t know whether someone has already made your point already. But, you may be worried about how to keep track of the specific note to which you wanted to respond. So, while you are reading, jot down the Note # and general ideas you want to state. Try to determine what hasn’t been said yet that you feel is important, or what experience you brings to this topic or task which other class members may not have, or add a synthesis or additional analytical comment advancing the discussion to a deeper level of consideration.

The "threads" of a discussion are sometimes hard to follow, especially if yours or others’ comments don’t immediately follow the note they reference. Always reference the comment you are responding to. This will allow you and others to go back and use the Message Thread feature of FirstClass to review a set of replies on one topic.

Computer conferencing implies structured communication, but much confusion results when students contribute notes in the wrong areas. Review the structure of the 641 computer mediated conference found in the Welcome letter on-line. Remember that there are two major areas that every participant has - a personal are for receiving private email messages, and public areas where all of the discussion occurs in either small groups or large groups. At least initially, we will use individual folders for our weekly discussion. Generally, if you have questions to ask specific persons (like the instructor) send an email message. But almost all responses to discussions, course assignments, and readings should be placed within the public area. Consider all existing structures open to change as we determine what best meets our particular learning needs.

Electronic conferencing invites many people to discuss some exciting issue in a way that uniquely evolves and the group synergy of insight on the phenomena is greater that any one person’s thoughts could be alone. So, an effective message does more than nod agreement to other’s comment, and it does it monopolize the conversation with an extended soliloquy. Instead, it adds something, states that author’s position, and begs a response. The discussion is like a game of catch: you want to take the ball (conversation) in your turn and pass it along so that others can catch without fumbling.

The typical message should be no more than a screen in length; if it is more than two screens, people will get lost and probably not read further. The key is to limit your contribution to one key idea with supporting points and only one question. If you have more ideas or questions you want ask others, place them each in separate notes. Otherwise you’ll confuse the conversation.

Think of on—line discussions as "chatting-in-writing," not as formal writing. Misspellings, grammatical mistakes, and typographical errors should be forgiven for the sake of creativity, substantive insight, and spontaneity.

However, formal written work on—line (as well as off—line), like for summaries of group discussion or individual presentations, should adhere to academic standards of excellence. It is relatively easy to compose these lengthy, formal contributions, in word processor, spell check it, and then upload it to the GROUP.

Our electronic seminar is a collaborative learning experience. Therefore the mood should be friendly and constructive, yet maintaining diversity of expression and critical disagreement. Because you can’t see those with whom you are chatting, some participants may be inclined to write with and icy edge, saying extreme and derogatory statements they wouldn’t voice in person. Don’t! Also, be aware that dry, sarcastic humor usually depends heavily on voice inflections to carry out, so on—line the same ideas may be misread or misinterpreted. Mean what you say.

Being entirely text-based, computer conferencing can lose the emotional feel behind messages unless participants intentionally seek to bring it forth. First, share the emotional impact of the material you read, how you feel about it. Second, indicate in your writing the gestures you physically wish to convey, (grin, smile, frown, gulp, sigh, and wink) by including these words within parentheses. You can express anger with various symbols (@!!##..) like in the comics. And, finally, there are a wealth of sideways faces you can add to your writing such as ;-), :-O, or :-( to show a few. (For those who are really intrigued there are whole books written about "faces" in print.!!)

Adapted from materials developed by N. Gadbow and D. Eastmond,

University of Syracuse, 1992

WiscWorld services on the UW-Madison campus flourished this fiscal year. The number of dial users increased 45% from August 1995 (11,890 users connected for a total of 157,725 hours) to May 1996 (17,275 users connected for a total of 221,586 hours). The average time used per user per month was about 13 hours.

There were several service upgrades and policy changes implemented this year. The major highlights were:

The results of these changes has decreased our busy signals about 10%, and almost no complaints about busy signals were received during the Spring 1996 semester.

Our analysis of Ameritech busy data (see graph below) and in-house busy studies will give us information to improve service to P.05 level (5% of the attempted calls result in a busy signal). An infrastructure upgrade proposal has been submitted that will allow for a basic level of service at no cost and pay options for ‘power users’.

Percentage of Calls Receiving Busy Signals on Peak Days

* Only Tuesday data have been used since peak demand for dialin access usually occurs on Tuesdays.

I have just read the various groups entries, and want to respond to a remark made by Jim in the South group, however, didn't want to interrupt the trail in that group so am entering it in the it in week 11 comments....I was concerned about the comment made regarding "lecture" working well in the Tech College where he does some teaching of psych.

While I know lecture is a format frequently used in many post-secondary institutions of higher education, by no means do I and many of my colleagues support the notion of LECTURE as the preferred or regularly used teaching and learning methodology. Within the nursing program...and others...at our College, we are really moving to a discussion/seminar and small group work format for classroom. These are aimed at getting the learner more actively involved in the educational process. It also comes from or sincere effort to integrate general education competencies and core abilities. These strategies coupled with the substantial "hands-on" experience the tech college system is recognized for is really an attempt to prepare the graduate for the world of work as local business and industry request.

These strategies tend to be foreign to the students who were educated in a traditional lecture format, were the teacher was a "sage on the stage" versus the now more popular "guide on the side". And while they may "grumble" at first, they do eventually get used to it, and end up valuing the experience. A frustration we have is when other course faculty do not espouse to or engage in these teaching strategies, and the students then have different "roles" in their educational experience. What I was successful in doing this year was securing an internal grantto fund a four day-long workshops between August 1995 and May 1996 on critical thinking and how to teach it and evaluate it. The four days involve introducing to the concept; observing, demonstrating and practicing the techniques; jounraling/storytelling about the experience; and implementing evaluation strategies. The participants are faculty in the health programs at the college and the general education faculty.

Looks like I gotta be careful regarding my casual remarks--they could come back to haunt me like those those of so many flustered politicians during an election year.

I don't support the notion of LECTURE as the preferred or regularly used teaching and learning methodology either. I've often felt that the syllabi that I was dispensed to teach from needed to be updated.

I will submit however that in certain ACADEMIC, as opposed to VOCATIONAL courses, the application is at best talked about in class and written about in papers rather than overtly performed.

WTCS philosophy oozes from your recent posting.

I'm annoyed that folks from other groups can montor our discussions and take issue with our remarks, naming individuals in the process. I thought that we were instructed not to do this at the beginning of the semester.

I'm referring to a recent posting to the Week Eleven folder.

Betty. In future course offerings, you may wish to consider not authorizing folks from other groups to monitor groups that they are a not a part of or posting rebuttals. I'm referring to a software solution rather than the honor system.

Beware. Big sister is watching!

Jim, privacy standards aside, if I were in another group, I'd *want* to read your stuff and I'd jump groups to do so. Why? Well, for starters, you share a practical experience that sheds light for an adult education newbie like me. Plus, like George, you often sound counterpoints to things I might otherwise take on face value. All year long you've asked: "But what does this mean for me as an instructional designer?" That's an important question to keep at the forefront.

Now, related to privacy, those of us in South have had a semester to come to understand the context and meter of the various messengers in the group. Viewing messages in Week 11 without reading up from Week 3 or 4 could indeed lead to misunderstanding and false context. But at least for Southerners, I think we can tell by now when you're on the level or when kitty might be distracting you by gnawing on your shoelaces.

I think Tim's response to your feelings, Jim, was right on target. To clarify, we didn't try to restrict anyone's freedom to read all the group's discussion. We did ask people to only make comments in their own group. I guess I didn't anticipate that anyone would try to respond outside the small groups altogether. I can appreciate how you feel having your comment singled out for a general response, and I would agree that probably isn't appropriate esp since it's taken out of the context of the discussion. So I guess we need to work on some more group norms for the future.

Thanks for your suggestions!

As I have done all semester, I read all groups' entries...I have gained alot of insight from that endeavor, and until the "sense of violation" last week, no one "really" knew that this "lurking" was going on. I would be dissappointed if we didn't have the choice to be able to learn from others.

But now I have done what I shouldn't have by the definition of the group work...I have logged in on your group....sorry about that, but when I read Betty's personal story and the responses from Tim and Tom, I was sooooo engaged that I spontaneously cheered their ideas on. Sorry. I hope no one feels too violated, and I will try not to be over zealous in the future.

In case we don't personalize this conversation again, have a BLESSED HOLIDAY.

CC: BETTY R. HAYES

Vickie,

I personally do not appreciate you're trespassing via e-mail posting into the South folder and question its appropriateness.

It is not appropriate.

Kindly follow the ground rules regarding posting into other groups folders which were defined by the instructors at the beginning of the semester.

I've been reading all the notes on community posted here and elsewhere and was distressed to find an uprising in the South. Jim I too read all the notes when I can posed to the other areas. It's somewhat as instinctual as "peeking" at the eye. But, truly it is in the spirit of learning that has led me to getting to know my fellow colleagues of CMC. Our discussions in each regional section have often times taken different slants on the same topic. I have been challenged to think differently about the readings. I asked Gen once if I could post something she had said to our group. I was puzzled at the response of "yes you were trespassing"...was it that someone actually sent a message to your group. I expect it must have felt like a "violation" to you, but please accept we're all in a learning mode here. It might be a good question for the final evaluation of the course.

Mary Helen

I thought we were encouraged to browse the other groups to check out insights and discussion from other groups. I thought the only thing we were asked not to do was to contribute our pithy thoughts to the groups we were not members of. I thought that if there was a thread developing in one group that seemed of value to the whole group, it would be brought up in "Reflections" folder.

Mary Helen, I was flattered that you thought one of my contributions was noteworthy of discussing in your group! :)

To clarify, Chere and I did not try to restrict your reading of all the groups' discussions. We asked you to make comments only in your own group primarily to restrict the quantity of "required reading" for any one group. I think that it's great that many of you are interested enough in the group discussions to read all of them, and I hope you all take it as an indication of the value of your comments for everyone. Vickie did make a slip in adding her comments to South, but she wasn't trespassing where she should not have been.

Betty-

What's the $fine if we get caught writing in another region? I certainly don't want my classmates in other parts of the world to feel violated.

Hmm - the fine is no chocolate til Christmas and washing all the blackboards. Oops - what's the equivalent of an online blackboard? Maybe archiving all our comments this semester...........

I've been mulling over the idea of "lost certainties" for the past few days, and I wonder if there is an ethical soft spot to this process. What if we cause someone to take a hard look at their certainties, and they don't like what they see. If they can then learn from the process and grow from it, fine. However, I wonder if there are some people which can be left devastated by the process, and rather than grow, they withdraw, become cynical, are hurt, etc. Do facilitators have an ethical responsibility to clean up after the mess they can make?

George (Thinking of things that make me go Hmm)

Good point George. I think this issue of what we "bring up" for someone is especially acute when we discuss things like emotions and looking at the process of learning. I find this especially hard with a course I teach called "Principles of Self-Management." We look at change in their lives, learning styles etc., some of the soft-stuff of management. Many of the students have had enormous change in their lives and to open those spots in the public arena of a classroom is touchy at best.

It's easy to say that's their problem, but I think your point about ethics is something I know I struggle with. Thanks for bringing it up.

Mary Helen

I share your concern with responsibility for the results of "lost certainities," George. I think that facilitators might attempt to ensure that learners have adequate support - emotional, social, whatever - as they go through such a process. One catch is that we may not be able to anticipate what will trigger a loss of certainty for any learner. The idea of a learning community seems like it would provide some support as a starting point.

George: The question you raise about our roles and responsibilities after we have 'dashed' a person's certainties is an excellent one. As a grad student we particularly struggled with issue in a group dynamics class where students became increasingly self aware and were not always that pleased with what they found lurking there in the shadows. The line between educator creating self-awareness in learners and therapist enhancing self-awareness is a fine line I believe and a scary one. I feel barely trained to the the former (impostor syndrome arising from time to time) and wholely unqualified to do the latter. I may not always know when I have strayed across the line. One valuable addition to any educator's tool kit is a list of resources on campus to help students in psychological need.

I have mixed feelings about the question I brought up regarding ethics and lost certainties. On one hand, I think adults can take care of themselves, for example, I remember feeling devastated after Apocalypse Now, but I dealt with it. On the other hand, if we are involved with unearthing deep secrets through our role as facilitators, I do feel we need to move slowly and "take care' of the learners. I particularly like the idea of a learning community offering a nurturing place to go. In many ways this issue is similar to "breaking bad news" to patients. I have a legal and moral obligation to discuss medical conditions, but I try and do it in the context of a supportive environment. Still, bad news is bad news and sometimes it's nearly impossible to soften the blow (it's like switching deck chairs on the TItanic). Still, I think I don't mind my learners as much as I do my patients when it comes to goming to grips with lost certainties. George :-(

George: I feel very strongly about helping people knit themselves back together, especially if I'm the one who helped them do the unraveling! Seems like an ethical responsibility betweenhumans, regardless of the role.

And while we're at it...the question about seeing vs. hearing has been making me think this week...maybe we're "viewing" this whole issue too literally...I don't see things, but I construct visual images of words or pictures out of the things I sense and hear...maybe that's the "seeing"? Even though the optic nerve is longer, mine is trashed, but I think my memory is fine. Conversely, if I hear something and don't attend to it, it doesn't "stick". Any comments?

Karen,

The sensory organs are like many other

instruments in that they collect information.

However, the processing and interpretation

of the data is the stuff of cognition. When

something sticks, it's because you attended to

it. Certainly not everything our senses pick up

are processed at a high level. It is this process

that is key.

George

George,

FYI, learning is very possible and common without awareness. However, this isn't the "academic-type" of learning that you may be referring to.

The perceptual psychologist that I took a course with some 15 years ago was of the opinion that the distinction between sensation and perception was not a meaningful one to make.

Jim,

Think about the shirt you're wearing.

The sensory nerves of your skin are

sensing the pressure of the shirt

against the skin. The neurons are

firing. But the brain extinguishes

the input and after a second or two

does not perceive it. This is a very useful

function, otherwise we would all blow

a gasket from sensory overload.

I beg to differ, there IS a difference between

sensation and perception.

George

George,

Take it out with the prof...

Interesting to note that the name of the course was "Sensation & Perception".

Go figure...

I'm not going to argue that extinction, aclimatization, or habituation do not exist or defend this distinguished prof's assertion.

Although its been years since I thought about these sorts of things, I believe that his point was that, for most purposes, it is not useful distinguish between the raw physical stimulation impinging upon a given sense organ and the interpretation that the organism makes on the basis of that stimulation.

If you've ever studied this sort of thing, you'll recall that the physical (sensory), perceptual, and psychological often become hopelessly intertwined.

Jim,

I agree that we disagree, and I'll leave it at that.

George

George,

There is nothing for us to disagree about!?

I don't have an opinion on the matter and am simply restating course material.

Take it up with Dr. Warren @ UW-Milwaukee.

I will note though that the view view stated is common among perceptual/cognitive psychologists whose "level of analysis" is probably very different from your own.

George -

Speaking of ethics - its a big topic in business and medicine - do you think ethics can be taught to students in MBA programs who are 25 or older? I personally believe that once you hit a certain age, a person's ethical nature is pretty well established and that courses on the subject will not change behavior unless a person has reached a point where they abolutely have to.

PHIl

Business schools are getting millions of dollars in donations to develop ethics programs. I think it's a way for people to feel good about themselves to be able to exhibit how we as an institution are doing the right thing.

Interesting question about changing ethical behavior/beliefs after age 25. I know the prof in the Business School here who teaches the business ethics courses for the MBA program. He uses a service learning approach and has the students do work in the community (ie with homeless shelters, neighborhood centers, etc) to develop their awareness of community problems and their commitment to address them. I could ask him about the results of the course - any specific questions I should pose to him?

There's a school of thought that "business ethics" is a contradiction in terms. "Business profit" seems to be the driving force in most U.S. businesses. So does "ethics" mean, "How far will we go to make a buck?"

Relating business ethics to adults in the workplace, I see hope on the horizon. In particular, since at least the early '90s, the Families and Work Institute in New York is providing support and visibility to companies that exhibit excellent Work-Family-Education practices. Through a self-reported rating system, companies can answer a set of FWI questions a la ISO9000 or Malcolm Baldridge and obtain a baseline score on the company's family-friendliness in the workplace. Companies can compare themselves to other companies. FWI published a book recently ranking family-friendly companies in the States.

Presumably, those firms with higher scores are more attractive to potential employees, male and female, who appreciate the support in balancing work-family challenges. In return, employees at the firms are in the best possible mental and physical states to be productive.

Phil,

I hope that we can, but we need to study

these kinds of questions. My guess is that

there are some areas where we can stretch

minds a little, and some where we can't. I

want to know where education is effective

and where it isn't. And if it's not effective,

stop trying to do it. An example in medicine is

controlling diet. I don't think we're very good

at promoting an actual change in behavior,

and I'd rather spend the education and health

care dollars elsewhere IF this is born out.

George (P.S. to Jim ---> is failure to produce effective

practitioners a failure of the

medical education system

or a failure of the admissions

committee to pick up these

"failures" beforehand?)

Jumping in late (sorry - away in Minneapolis Sunday through Tuesday night) but the ethics question intriques me. I worry about your '25 years of age' Phil. I think we make ethical decisions (or the reverse) at any age without reazlly thinking about them. Teaching one class period on ethics where we first confronted an ethical dilemma, worked in groups to determine a solution ,then considered the solutions in light of the two modern families of ethics theories helped us all in the class be more clear about the basis of our decision making. Was our primary concern the consequences of our decision or perhaps the equal treatment of all under existing rules, etc. It helped us understand how different people come to different decisions when faced with an ethical dilemma. I think discussion, case studies, etc. focusing on eithical dilemmas allow us to become more reflective practitioners once again- this time reflective ethicists

Tim - interesting comments on the link between family and the workplace and those workplaces that are family & community friendly. We have just been challenged to consider developing an MBA that combines the business side and the family side to help those presumably who will be in management begin to appreciate the interconnectedness among and between work, family, the community,etc. Context is begining to emerge as an important variable - the context of the employees' life. We'll chat more about this next week as that is the topic of our readings.

What is the objective of the course? You must be talking about Dennis Collins. Kids like the course. Is objective to inject ethical behavior or simply to sensistize to ethics? With Bottom-line stressed in business, it seems that ethics continuously placed lower on the priority list? Also, any study of the correlation between the ethics of a company and their longterm financial performance. Ethical companies that come to mind - Johnson and Johnson, McDonalds, 3M, etc.

Phil - the course I was refering to where I had one period focusing on ethics was a course on "Introduction to College Teaching" for educators oft times are caught in ethical dilemmas. Good question about is there a relationship between business ethics and profit. My evil mind suggests there probably is and it's probably an inverse relationship :( The ethics of a compnay (or the lack of or the position forge on and damn the consequences) is an important consideration for employment.

Can I live with their ethics? If I can't, best move on.

Where a lot of this developed was in the late '80's as unethical behavior by those who worked on Wall Street (Ivan Boesky, Michael Milliken) caused a stir in MBA programs. They began to question what is we are teaching these students, make money at all costs. Many schools, U of Chicago, Northwestern, et al started an ethics program that was marketed indirectly as a way to show that their programs went beyond just teaching the hard-core analytical stuff. Businesses and philanthropists became very interested and began providing millions to schools.

I remember having a discussion with Bob Aubey, an international business prof, about this and he really believed that you can teach situations to people to sensitize them to issues beyond the walls of the business. In particular, environment and other disasters such as Bhopal India were always talked about.

This will be interesting. Again, many businesses are having to face this issue as good employees leave due to stress and other factors and that the work force is diversifying. The undergraduate business program contains more women than men in accounting, a major change. Bob Dylan was right.

An interesting PS George,

As an educator, I would view the earlier described failure to produce effective medical practitioners to be a failure of the medical educational system's instructional, not admissions, component.

Obviously the small (??) percentage of ineffective practioners you reference have the capability to master biomedical information, talk the talk, and ultimately score highly on their med boards, etc.

Shooting from the hip, and from outside the system, it appears to be an issue with the medical educational system's PERFORMANCE SUBSYSTEM and its quality assurance component.

In short, practice with feedback of the desired target skills and accountability (i.e., grades) for demonstrating these skills in a variety of clinical settings throughout medical education might be effective.

I also think that accountability "on the job/in the clinic" is necessary to maintain the desired behavior after leaving the educational system. Patients generally don't know whether the doc is doing a good job and I'd be suprised to hear that docs have their treatment plans monitored closely after beginning their practice.

I tend to agree with Bob Aubey. What I think I "heard" Phil write was that this prof believes that ya can teach folks to identify ethical issues in the workplace, and by extension, what decisions they make about the issues identified may be beyond our control as educators.

I distinctly remember my reactions as an undergraduate in my one and only business course (MBA 15 years later) when I learned in lecture that "Business is an amoral enterprise". I have however come to believe that this is generally how the private sector operates.

Some of what Ivan Boesky and Michael Milliken did was illegal, much more of it was unethical, depending of course on your definition of ethical conduct.

This raises some interesting cross-cultural issues. Lockheed, now Lockheed-Martin, where I once worked as an instructional designer, was once convicted of unfair business practices for providing bribes to a middle-easterner to secure a large aircraft order. Well, as a former training manager in Saudi, this is how business is done over there. What is considered so unethical that it has been made illegal for US businesses is a more-or-less standard business practice in many other parts of the world.

Someone raised the gender issue regarding business ethics. I personally have been asked to falsify documents by a former female director in another company and am inclined to believe that organizational pressures and institutional-level contingencies, not X & Y chromosomes, are more of a deciding factor in determining ethical conduct in a business setting.

P.S. The documents remained as is but she ultimately did not.

Betty H.,

What a progressive approach to teaching ethics. Please ask the prof if any of the students show any signs of beginning transformation as they interact with people from another culture (poverty), or if they tend to blame the victims for their plight, thereby absolving business of the need to try to make any significant contributions to the community.

Also, is anyone pointing out to the future MBA's that if the CEO's of major corporations continue to "improve the bottom line" for their investors by laying off thousands of workers and either moving their operations out of the country or hiring only "temps" with no benefits, eventually there won't be enough of us left who can afford to buy their products and services?

This may have less to do with ethics than with long-term vs. short-term goals.

Are my biases and assumptions showing? :-)

Jim,

Praciticing physicians are having pracitce plans

scrutinized more than ever. I would have agreed

with you twenty years ago, but not today. The

reasons for this include:

1) the constant threat of malpractice

2) the birth of practice guidelines and

"standards of care"

3) the ascent of managed care (as an aside, this

raises the question of whether a manager with

an MBA should be telling physicians when and

how and what to treat)

4) the increased sophistication of the customer

(Madison has very smart people and I often see

patients come in with a handful of articles on

the disease of the month)

In many ways, these changes are most welcome.

George (P.S. in my opinion, we need to improve

both educational effectiveness and our

ability to predict who will succeed in actual

practice during the admissions process)

Betty V.

Remember that the business is cyclical. You are right that the "bottom line" is the controller, but that works both ways. These companies that are down-sizing, hiring part-time workers to save money will begin to see the effects of high turnover, low employee commitment, and the lower productivity of workers that have to work two part-time jobs to support themselves and family. It is sad to see that we have to go through this part of the cycle.

I think that some industries are already starting to come out of this slump. Fast-food chains for instance, are offering a starting wage 30% above minimum + benefits. Still not great, but a remarkable improvement from only 5-6 years ago. They used to be known for flat minimum wages. I have watched a few companies go through these "early-retirement" phases. They retire their older, higher paid employees and then bring in young people under new terms.(i.e. lower wages, less benefits, less advancement) Some of these companies are already beginning to feel the adverse side effects!

Tom (What comes around, goes around)

I think learning ethics is life long. The major principles and valuing mayb be structured fairly early on, but the structurea nd assumptions need to be reassessed for currency and relevency - and adjusted to the impact of the chinging world. I think that's what the ethics courses I've been involved with have been about. I hope we don't get ossified when it comes to ethics.

Phil - From what I know ofthe UW Business Ethics course, it is intended to sensitize students to issues outside of business, with the intent of encouraging their involvement in addressing social problems. But I'll ask Denis to tell me his goals for the course.

Betty -

A CEO in Philadelphia, Al Dunlap, of Scott Paper rationalized his laying off of 5000 or more workers as this: "it was better to lay off a third of the workforce than to see the whole company go under". I had never heard that rationalization by a CEO before but he seemed to believe it. The shareholders must have believed it as well as the company's stock tripled under Dunlap. Recently, Kimberly-Clark bought what was left of Scott.

The epilogue to the story - I think Dunlap walked away after his company was sold with over $90 million. Legal - yes, ethical - depends.

Phil - interesting layoff decision and the CEO would be described by the theorists as a consequentialist - he made his decision based on the consideration of the constellation of consequences of a variety of decisions. (That's looking at the whole picutre in the very best and theoretical light I can muster!)

When one's senses are impaired, the other ones can be trained to kick in and you'd better believe that they are attended to! Just stand on a street corner sometime, close your eyes, and decide what senses you can afford to place low on the list.

Here is a belated follow-up to an earlier discussion of business ethics. Denis sent me part of the syllabus for his Business Ethics course, which I've copied below. It indicates the goals he has for the course. He feel that it's possible to affect the ethics of the most skeptical (and older) MBA student. Sorry the copy is so long................

POLITICAL, ETHICAL, AND LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS

BUS 730, Spring Term 1995

Monday & Wednesday

1:00 pm - 2:15 pm, 1240 Grainger

Professor: Denis Collins

Office: 4283 Grainger Hall

Office Phone: 263-3922; Home Phone: 258-8854

Office Hours: Monday & Wednesday, 4:00-5:00, or by appointment.

"Rather than taking it for granted that everyone knows that an

informed citizenry is the lifeblood of our society, or that

individual freedom and autonomy depend upon knowledge and

understanding, these goods of education must be made explicit"

Barry Schwartz (1994) The Costs of Living, p. 281.

"From (the perspective of senior executives), business schools seem

to turning out focused analysts, albeit highly sophisticated ones,

adept at measuring and calculating the probabilities of outcomes,

but, at the same time, graduates who often are unwittingly

insensitive to the impacts of these outcomes on factors other than

the "bottom line."... We feel that this is one of the most

important challenges for business schools as they prepare for the

21st century: to transcend the analytical and the methodological

and to incorporate an understanding of the importance of a broad,

well-rounded education in the preparation of business students."

Lyman W. Porter & Lawrence E. McKibbin (1988) Management

Education and Development, 316-7.

The Problem:

A salient tragedy for many organizations is that managerial tasks

are limited to the accomplishment of specific organizational goals

(profits/outputs) and specific personal goals (promotion/job

security/bonus). Many managers suffer from "moral myopia." They

do not intend to do evil, rather they are blind to the negative

social ramifications of their decisions. This has resulted in the

proliferation of inefficient and ineffective organizations whose

intentions, actions and consequences are closely monitored by

judges, politicians and other public servants. Thus, life within

organizations is highly politicized around the concept of power.

The Solution:

Organizations desperately need managers who can accumulate and

distribute power, and resolve societal conflicts-of-interests, in

a fair and equitable manner. Excellent managers are those who can

balance and/or integrate the sometimes conflicting interests of

owners, employees, customers, suppliers, government officials and

local communities. In this sense, a manager's job is more similar

to that of a judge and legislator than that of a technician (Note:

See survey results at end of this section).

The Strategy:

Social philosophers have been actively attempting to resolve

conflicts of interests for at least several thousand years. Thus,

students will explore political philosophy, ethical theory and

legal philosophy; in particular, students will read and apply the

writings of Aristotle, Machiavelli, John Rawls, Karl Marx, Adam

Smith, Lawrence Kohlberg, Milton Friedman, and others. Each of

these social philosophies will be examined based upon the student's

own organizational experiences. In addition, this knowledge will

be obtained through lectures, a research project, class debates,

homework assignments and in-class group activities. Studying

philosophers also contributes to one's "cultural literacy."

The Results:

By the end of the semester students ought to know: (1) how good

judges and well-intentioned politicians think and act, and (2) how

these socially desirable patterns can be adapted by managers as the

foundation for their organization's standard operating policies and

procedures. Students will learn the following practical skills:

1. How to conduct a public meeting

2. How to work on teams

3. How to debate a policy issue

4. How to reason at a high level of moral development

5. How to resolve ethical dilemmas

6. How to develop a code of ethics and use it to transform a unit

7. How to perform an ethical analysis of firm

8. How to involve employees in community service projects

9. How to make a difference in organizations and life

In addition, this class is about taking individual responsibility

for the political, legal and ethical environment that surrounds

you, including class discussions and projects. You should learn to

help manage the classroom environment.

Those students who sincerely and actively engage in course

activities, and appropriately apply these ideas during their

careers, are likely to become excellent managers. That is,

managers who can achieve organizational and personal goals by

balancing and integrating conflicting stakeholder interests in a

fair and just manner. That is, a manager of high integrity who is

deserving, but may not always get, both public and private praise.

For the most part, students enjoy learning this material.

NOTE: The values that 6,000 executives and managers most admire in:

Peers: Integrity 24%, Cooperation 18%, Competency 15%

Superiors: Integrity 24%, Leadership 15%, Competency 12%

Subordinates: Integrity 24%, Determination 18%, Competency 17%

I stopped in to the office at about 6:30 PM tonight (I'm in training) and found that I had received a document detailing acceptable ethical conduct for employees along with a card that I gotta sign attesting that I have read the entire 60+ pages. Not likely.

I understand that our parent company had some problems with government contracting and as part of the settlement, everyone goes through ethics training, etc, etc.

I'll post next week if anything in this book is interesting...

Thanks for forwarding the course description, Betty. It was interesting to read the objectives and methods.

I was struck by the survey, particularly that all mentioned "Integrity" as the #1 perceived characteristic for

effective management. I didn't see how the course defined integrity. Do the participants define integrity?

The description implied that to be viewed as someone with integrity, you need to be able to balance competing demands, market pressures and internal/external political pressures. Is there more to integrity? Seems to me the concept of integrity is about as difficult to grasp as is the concept and behaviors of "leadership". Lots of corporate training programs are jumping on the bandwagon to provide this kind of training, but it looks like many of them don't have much to go on besides subjectively defined behaviors. With some of the companies I've been exposed to, what's leadership or ethical in one corporate culture, may not be viewed similarly in another. Makes me question the whole transfer-of

-training-back-to-the-workplace rationale to design tight, measurable programs. It all seems so ethereal.

Comments?

Gen-

Tom Peters just made a comment in ASAP that he feels that these leadership programs are oversold. Somebody just wrote a book on Leadership, and I don't recall the name, that leadership programs have a great influence on those "natural leaders" who are born with that character. Having them exposed to it provides impetus to lead. Others, nonleaders, can take the courses but will not really benefit except to gain knowledge (won't necessarily make them leaders).

I don't know. I've read Warren Bennis from USC and John Kotter from Harvard and they really believe that leadership skills can be taught to everyone. The problem is when they do their research, they study high level managers or CEO's who are in leadership positions. Kinda like studying the skills of professional baseball players and saying we can teach these skills to everyone and make them great players.

As usual, I think the answer is some where in between. Ethics, leadership, change management (the next big buzzword as companies are finding that Business Process Reengineering was not their Utopia) are all great issues that are hard to quantify but are fun to learn about and bring consultants a great deal of money.

Should business ethics be a stand alone course or should this content be embedded into the core courses within the various B-School programs of study much like the WTCS tech colleges do with their core competencies? My opinion is that embedding this content is the preferred alternative. Both embedding this content into program courses such as management, finance, accounting, and human resourses AND offering it as a stand allone elective is also a possibility.

By comparison, does it make sense to have a stand-alone course in shop safety for WTCS occupational programs? I think not. Instruction in safe working practives needs to be embedded into each shop course. This model would have students taught how to use tools and machines safely during their initial instruction on them. A supplementary stand alone safety course is also a possibility but, IMHO not without basic safety instruction within each shop class.

Similar comments apply to business ethics.

Gen:

As we discussed ethics in one class period in Intorduction to College Teaching our converstation eventually strayed to cluture and the impact of the surrounding culture. Institutions/organiztions have cultures and ethics athat employees are supposed to fit into. Sometimes the fit isn't there. Speaking from experience, that's when it's time to adjust or leave. If you haven't come to some understanding of who you are and what you believe (albeit chaing ing with times and experiences) I think its hard to leave. One just adjusts. I guess that's why I believe we need to build learning experiences that question our beliefs, values, ethics, provides opportunities that help us understand what others believe, etc. - a safe environment to explore new ideas, values, behaviors, etc. and allow us to be reflective beings.

I tend to agree with Jim. We do need to interweave ethics, philosphy, etc. throughout our educational experiences.

I also agree with Chere and Jim about "embedding" ethics into various courses. I suspect that "ethics" are implicit in most business courses anyway. The types of leadership or managemnt practices that are advocated reflect certain ethical principles. Sort of like values being implicit in any kind of educational activity.

No such thing as "value-free" education.

Betty,

I'm not certain what "value free education" means to you but in the corprate world, what is taught can also become a political issue. Specifically, who would of thought that two different departments could be a odds with each other over the "proper" way to troubleshoot noise difficulties in the 1336 FORCE drive and that Jim needs to "engineer" concensus among them in the process of establishing course content.

Whew.

Then again, who would have thought that an academic department at Florida State University would break up over the issue of whether or not to teach the use of behavioral objectives.

Go figure...

Regarding embedding ethics in all business, etc. courses, I agree that this is the way to go. At UW-Platteville, the Business and Accounting Dept. recently made the decision to embed TQM principles in our course offerings as well as offer a TQM course.

So far it is working well and (I think) is much more effective in getting students to " think TQM" than just offering an isolated course. I don't see why ethics would be different. Machelle

I agree with the interweaving concept, but I also think the issues and their relationship to practice need to be clearly articulated (please do not read that there is a right answer). I am struck with the need for people in my practice to relook at their beliefs and values and the culture created by them. I have begun working with a staff nurse unit level management group and found we had to go back to articulating what we believed helped patients get better before we could move on to other issues. This has happened several times before. I guess I don't want imbedding to mean unknown in the bedrock and foundation.

Whose ethics are we embedding? I'm back, but hibernating for awhile.

Threading ethics through several courses

sounds appealing. However, easier said

than done. I'd venture to say you'd have

to get a lot of cooperation amongst the

various teachers to do the job. More to

the point, it sends a message to the learners:

ethics is not important enough to warrant its

own course. For the internal medicine residents,

there are a number of areas that we have tried

to thread through various learning experiences

(cost-effectiveness and psycho-social issues

are two others). The result has been a "de-valuing"

of those topics. At least some learners get a very

loud message: pay lip service to this but learn something

else. Any comments? George

From an instructional standpoint, threading ethics training into the parious content specific courses seems to be the best choice. However, politically it may be perceived by students and faculty to be devaluation of ethics.

As if there isn't enouth to teach already, one solution may be to teach it in both stand-alone and threaded formats.

BTW, today I signed off on the card attesting that I read the 60 page ethics book which was distributed desk to desk and understood how it applied to my job.

I don't think that threading ethics (or and other "core competency") into multiple courses necessarily downgrades the competency area.

Ensure that supervising docs don't bumrap ethics during informal discussions in the hospital and even model the competency. Also testing for mastry of ethical concepts and practical application within a given practice area (pediatrics, internal medicine, etc.) would likely ensure that the docs-in-training at least verbally master the content.

Perhaps you're thinking more like a faculty member than student in your remarks about stand-alone course vs threaded content.

Re integration vs separation of ethics into courses: I agree that integrating ethics could seem to reduce its importance, but I guess it depends on how that is handled. On the other hand, only dealing with ethics in a separate course could also make it seem like an "add-on" rather than something that is integral to all aspects of business (or life in general). But this can get me off on a broader issue, which is the way we

continue to compartmentalize knowledge in academe. I think we really need to work more towards reconceptualizing how we organize learning experiences - more problem-centered vs subject-centered learning.

Some of you in other professional fields might already be doing some of this?

Jim,

For places like the UW (where research is king/queen),

ethics falls why down on the priority list. For instance,

a big time researcher in Colon cancer doesn't give a

&#$%@# about teaching ethics (let alone teaching

anything). The priority of the institution is loud and

clear (it was loud and clear as a medical student at

Illinois, and it's louder anc clearer now). Research

and medical knowledge are what the movers and

shakers care about: it's what you get known for and

what you get promoted for. When in Rome, do as the

Romans do.... George

George,

It's hard to argue with your points. My counterpart at MCW has made similar obesrvations.

I suppose that one of the upsides of selecting students with a lot of chanel capacity and motivation is that they are able/willing to overcome "instruction" that is not really instructonal.

I too am for the notion of integration of concepts or life skills across the curriculum (ie" ethics, critical thinking, growth and development, etc.) In nursing, we have generally moved away from specific courses in pharmacology, nutrition, pathophysiology and the like, and have integrated or "threaded" them throughout the curriculum. For many of us, these major threads or life skills are the mainstays to our porgram philosopy's and conceptual framework's. Maintaining a competency level for these concepts, with increasing proficiency as one moves through the curriculum, is one way we make sure they don't "get lost" and through this mechanism, the students' are reminded of their importance.

Thank you Vickie for your support,

Wearing my ed psych and instructional design hats, from a technical standpoint, I can make a STRONG CASE that this is the preferred approach.

Perhaps the Med School ethicist should be brought in to teach this topic and thereby allow the scientist types to continue messing around in their labs...

Perhaps I haven't been clear. I agree that

threading is the way to go. I'm simply

lamenting that I live in a world that's

in the Jurasic Period when it comes to

these concepts. Vickie's program sounds

marvelous.

George (waiting for an asteroid to kill off the dinosaurs

so the mammals can have their turn!)

MCW does have a very active ethics department and does teach clinical ethics. (I have taken one of the clinical courses). However, working in the environment, I find that it is frequently nursing that brings up the issue and once brought up. the ethics committee is invited into the discussion. I do, however, find it interesting that "policy" dictates that only the MD (not patient, family, nursing OT or other discipline) can call for an ethics consult. Does send a message about who's ethics.

When I teach students - medical or nursing - I am always explicitly bringing up the ethical issues.

Jane,

I hear you. I think anyone should be

able to ask the hospital ethics committee to

get involved. I think the UW hospital's

committee is an underused resource,

exactly because MD's are the ones

who are supposed to bring them in.

It does send a message.

George

These messages are presented in chronological order as they would appear in a participant’s conference window.

Thanks Robin. Machelle I moved it this am, what I did (there may be other ways) was go to Edit "copy" the body of his message, went to conference and pasted it in a new message. The wonders of it all.

MH

Betty, this Harvard piece does indeed look interesting. It appears in some ways it depends on how you ask the question and what you're listening for. I hadn't thought of "mothering" as a categorization for a way of knowing. That is intriquing, for at times I do feel that is true. I also had a "professional" way of knowing--how I gathered information, processed it, etc. was in some manner different from the process of "mothering," "studenting," "aloning." Thanks for the new ideas.

MH

I've been interested in this thread on power in the classroom. Until I returned this time to school it's a part of the learning environment I intuitively knew but never labelled. However, I did make a conscious decision to empower myself in obtaining this degree. I feel that is perhaps the greatest challenge for me in the classroom. How to encourage each student to find their sense of power in learning. Empowerment is a term we knock around, but difficult to achieve unless we really put the issue on the table in the classroom.

Again, my experience is with returning students seeking a BA degree. For many of them seeing themselves as powerful learners is a new concept. They "expect" the faculty to have expert power. I know this goes back to earlier discussions, but in the one module I do on change with the group, we talk about the courage it takes to come out of the pit. What did they learn, how did things get altered, what power did they get after going through the changes in their life. How can this relate to their new learning experiences. Also, it's a time factor in getting to know them individually....what do they want to learn in the course and how they know when they know. Empowerment is more "inside" working, the self-esteem of learner.

Any of you had other experiences with putting the power back where it should be in the classroom...with the students. Do you feel more or less empowered on CMC? Why/why not? Just some Sunday morning thoughts.

Mary Helen

Re mothering as thinking: if you're interested in this, Mary Helen (or anyone else), other people have written about it.

Sara Ruddick has written some articles about what she calls "maternal thinking." For your spare time reading :) !

What a question Chere asks " What characterized your most transformational learning experience?"

My most transformational learning experience took place over several months. It involved studying for the CPA exam back in November 1984. I will never forget the total amount of information that had to be studied. It involved probably 10 to 12 classes of tax, cost and financial accounting. Not only was it voluminous but also boring. The study period lasted 4-6 months and even included a review course. The test itself was taken over 2 1/2 days covering all these areas.

The transformational part came when I passed it on the first try. I surprised myself as my grades in college were average and yet many other students who had great grades in college didn't pass the first time. It was a long process but convinced myself of the importance of studying hard and staying focused? Now, did I use any of this stuff that I painfully studied? Maybe 10%.

A question I want to pose regarding T & P's article on connecting experience with learning in relaton to the college setting especially undergraduate. I believe they make a strong point of the importance that connecting the learner's experience to the learning situation is vital. My question, if we place so much emphasis on the bachelor's degree that comes at a time when most students, unless they are returning, have little experience to relate to what they are learning, would we be better off to lengthen out the process to allow students to gain work experience and mix that with the undergraduate experience? I recall back to the undergrad days and relate couldn't relate to it.

The current four year degree program may be changing as it makes it difficult for students to afford the costs of higher education and must include some work to earn $.

Mary -

Interesting thoughts on power and empowerment. Using CMC, I think I feel powerful in different ways. I have a greater opportunity to voice my opinions and thoughts through the written way and have a greater control of being concise. I also have the ability to save directly what others say or to totally disregard it without even listening. In the class room there are more distractions. I also like the time management element with this.

In some ways, I miss the power of interaction in the class room as like to verbalize many thoughts. Many don't speak up as much so in a sense that does create a feeling of more power when not everyone will verbalize as much as they do on CMC.

This is one of my valuable lessons in life. It happened as a graduate student and a bunch of us went out after class. We ended up at the Kollege Klub in Madison and had a grand old time. One of us started buying a drink called a CMF which is very tastey but the after effects are unprintable. May I say that occasion taught me a couple of things. Just because you can do something when you are 19 or 20 doesn't mean you can do them when you are 25 or older.

I do worry about a dissertation that put too much emphasis on the Kolb intrument (just to throw a liitle cold water on the emthusiasm I've been reading and sensing). The instrument is not a 'strong' instrument from a psychometric standpoint. Sorry

:(

Phil:

Many programs of study at the BA/BS level require internships and/or service learning (Betty is our resident expert on the latter)> The need to earn an income while attending school does become an participation obstacle for many. Some data I was given a few weeks ago and I wish I remembered from where - in the 70s a student needed to work ~10-12 hours per week at minimum wage to pay for tuition, room and board. Now the 90s students need to work ~45 hours to pay for the same costs. Don't quote too broadly as I may be off a bit - but you get the general gist.

Chere, could you say more about using Kolb here. It has some value in outlining tendencies doesn't it? Is there another instrument more sensitive and sound that you know of?

Mary Helen

My understanding about Transformative learning is that the learner undergoes some sort of "epiphany" that forever changes their life. I don't know how easy that is when teaching individuals. Doesn't a learner have to be at a certain point in their life where circumstances create the situation where the learner is reader for the transformation. I don't think that happens too often in a person's life.

One example would be people who are caught drunk driving. The state makes them attend a course about their driving under the influence (and other things). How many still get go back to driving while intoxicated despite the course? Under Transformative learning, shouldn't the student understand that this was "bad" and never do it again? Unless the person had such an experience (such as a close call with death) they probably won't transform.

This is an ugly example but I really think the person has to internally be ready to transform before it actually occurs.

Chere-

Thus the need for cost effective distance learning utilizing the latest, greatest in CMC technology. In a couple of years, if not sooner, the video conference camera within the computer will become more cost effective so the individual can afford to see the other at their home. One of the company stocks I am looking at - PictureTel - so says. We'll see.

Mary Helen:

I love his model, however the Kolb instrument (the current 12 question model) has not proven itself to be very reliable in a test/retest sense (learner's ranking of the words is not stable over time, in internal consistency (nor are . Also, it has not proven to to be very helpful in predicting the kind of learning experiences a learner might choose when given choices thought to be associated with the four learning 'types.' I can pull references if that would be helpful.

What would I use instead? NOt sure - what are we hoping to measure - to get a handle on? Give me a hint and I'll try to make a suggestion.

Phil, I think you bring up some good point about transformational learner. One side of me says that most of what we learn transforms us in some way. Somehow the brain cells don't quite work the way they did before. The ephipany learning you speak of reminds me of what I was thinking as returning from an evening of teaching in Beloit. I was pondering how much transformational learning connects to my favorite movie, The Wizard of Oz. Dorothy ends up through the chaos of the twister in a new place, meeting three people, and discovering there's no place like home...but it's not the same as before. It also tied this course together, at least in my driving thoughts. Meeting the scarecrow (intellect, thinking, research), the tin man (the emotions, heartful learning) and the lion (the courage to learn, to open oneself to learning) enabled Dorothy to getOz. All three were necessary for her to transform her world, her lens on life, and the way she now viewed the people around her at a place called home.

Some late night pithy ramblings.

Mary Helen

To respond to Chere's question, my most transformational learning experience occurred due to a serious illness I had about 10 years ago. I had been a healthy person to that point and took my good health for granted. The illness caused me to slow down a lot for awhile and to learn how to treat myself better. The main thing that made this experience transformational was the fact that because of it, I could no longer think of my life as I had before--no matter how hard I tried. On one hand, I beat the illness and gained a lot of self-confidence and thankfulness in the process. On the other hand, I realized that life is fragile and we should treat ourselves and others with care. This was an experience that would not allow me to return to my status quo. In a way, I felt like a bystander to my own transformation. I think this is true of most transformational experiences. Kind of sounds like a theme in Phil's experience as well... Machelle

As I read Daloz' story of Gladys who refused to grow (transform), I saw so many people I know who have been in this same situation. They go to school, raise families, work, go back to school and try very hard to improve their lives. The problem is they aren't really willing to change. They want to go through the process of education without being transformed. The status quo is so much more comfortable than the fear of the unknown and the "unfelt". The most frightening thing about Gladys' story is that I could see myself in some ways--I have taken some courses in my academic career just to say I had accumulated X number of credits or to say I had earned a degree--but I really didn't wholeheartedly allow myself to be transformed by the experiences. How sad--as Chere said, hopefully just reading the article will be a transforming experience. The lightbulb goes on--maybe we should call it en LIGHTenment instead! Machelle

Can't seem to find our original schedule. Jane, are you or could you do our summary for this week? I'm down for next week.

Machelle

MH - thanks for the analogy to the Wizard of Oz. I love that movie for its multiple messages, and your new

interpretation is wonderful!

I also am aware of the problems with Kolb's instrumentation. Heuristically, however, it still remains a useful model

for me. I also find that people seem to relate to it very easily, which makes it seem helpful at least as a starting

point for thinking about how we all might compare in learning preferences. But as Chere said, research using the

instrument should be viewed with caution!

I wonder if Gladys' story would have been any happier if she did change? I thought that Daloz himself was

questioning that a bit?

The Poor Gladys story reminded me of the issue of choice. For a variety of reasons the status quo often times is the best (read that psychologically safer, consistent with the social realities, etc.)

It somewhat reminded me of the Carol Gilligan story she relates to young girls--at age 6 they have a good sense of self and to paraphrase her idea when Mom tells little Suzy to put on the red dress for the holiday visit of relatives she throws a tantrum; at age 10 Mom's same request is met with Suzy remembering the dress came from her Aunt and she might like that she wears it; at age 16, Suzy will even get into a car with a drunk driver or have sex because peer pressure become an important measure of socialization.

My long point here is that I think there comes in adulthood, another time to CHOOSE to recapture that sense of self...Machelle like with your illness. We are offered a choice to "transform" or to "conform." Some might call this a "teachable moment" some call it transformational learning...but somehow this courage to choose/or not choose our "self" seems to be an important ingredient. Gladys' "poorness" might be in her measuring of risk in altering her perspectives on life.

Any ideas...this is an synopsis of an idea I sometimes play around with mentally. Love comments...

Mary Helen

Machelle, I found the document--wow was it a long time or many messages ago...No one signed up for this date so I guess we all can choose to summarize????

MH

I've been giving some thought to transformational experiences; appreciated Phil and Machelle's comments. I've thought again how for me they come out of my emotive rather than necessarily academic learning. My return to academe is such an experience.

I sat the morning of July 1, 1993 with the application for grad school sitting before me. At that time, I had just returned from Chicago after leaving my job here in Madison to spend six weeks in hospice with my mother, another incredible learning experience. I had also recently separated from my husband of seventeen years and was learning how to be a solo parent of two fine young men. I knew that I didn't know. I knew that I had dreams of creating learning environments for women. I knew I that after 20 years of sharing information in libraries, I was at a time to learn to share information in different arenas. I knew I needed to become a part of a community of learners again...that maternal way of knowing goes just so far in keeping the brain cells alive. I felt in many ways that I was standing at the edge of a cliff, to seek to learn or to just work at something which would support our physical lives but certainly not my life. I lept off and filed the application. The last two years have more than been transformative, I am truly grateful for the miracles.

Mary Helen

Mary-

I probably go to the extreme when I talk of transformation so I guess it depends on what we mean with transformation. You're right when it can happen on a smaller basis. To me transformation is one of the $5 dollar words that are saved for momentous events but that is just semantics.

So true Machelle. The Daloz article really hits the point that there must be a willingness on the part of individuals to want to change. The future and its frenetic pace with changing technologies will make it even more difficult for those individuals.

Betty-

Does Kolb have the same problems as a Maslow type model in that it makes sense but is just hard to test?

Mary-

Great point about the either conforming or transforming. I believe that a major underpinning of the Hindu and other Eastern religions is to focus on the transformation side. One way to look at it is a literal definition of the word "transformation".

I think it means (without having a dictionary in front of me) going beyond oneself - be it physical or spiritual.

Whenever I do an inservice or workshop, I ask the participants what it is that they want to learn. The look of shock on their faces is so predictable. It happened several times this week. It seems to me that people are so conditioned to teacher centered power and teaching in the classroom, that models of collaboration and learner directedness are totally new news. Now part of that may be becaseu of the age group I am teaching, but I really do not think so. The same thing is happening in a probelm based learning project in which I am involved with first year medical students. They continue to look for me to tell them what they have to look up. When I put it back on them, they do figure out what they think is important and then I try to help them figure out gaps. As they get it, the energy they put into the process increases and the discussions get really intense and very interesting.

I have been thinking about the readiness issue with this as well. For me the experience was learning that it was safe not to be different from my psychiatric patients. Fear was the process that stimulated the transformation, but until I was ready to address the fear and learn from it, I did more seclusions and restraints than I have in the 18 years since.

I have been seeing that on the unit with all the staff who transferred from med-surg into psych to keep thier jobs. The fear, when it is directly confronted on the unit, almost melts away, but those who do not face it and learn from it are miserable. We talk about readiness to learn in other areas, I think it does apply to transformative experiences.

I can do the summary, but not likely until Saturday morning. If that time frame is okay, I'm game.

I hadn't heard that definition before Phil, thanks...I'm always amazed to discover other "ways" to see words.

MH

I found an Eric Digest on change and found some of it pertinent to our transformative discussion. Hudson (1991) in a book called the Adult Years talks about the pain of change when we feel we're living a linear existence. We expect that if we are "good" or "talented" or "educated," etc. all will be well. But little clinks come up and we're somewhat devasted when the bad stuff happens like a job phased out. Hudson feels we should consider reframing our perspective to a spiraled one, one which is " a cyclical view of adult life which promotes self-renewal." Characteristics of this perception include:

1) Life is complex, pluralistic, varied flow with ongoing cycles in nature, societies, and people

2) Life "develops" through cycles of change and continuity rather than in progressive, straight lines

3) Portrays human systems as flexible, interactive, and resilient, permitting continuous adaptations

4) Considers continuous learning to be essential to the constant improvement of adult competence.

"It recognizes that adults need not only knowledge and training to make the changing external world work but self-knowledge and training to make the internal world effective" (44)

A comment made in the brief that reminded me of Gladys was "many would say that it is better to do your best to make a worn out, dysfunctional life structure work and to tough it out than to face a life transition. That very attitude, erroneous as it is, keeps thousands of people locked into life structures that have died and into routines that are lifeless." (95)

Interesting stuff

Mary Helen

Thwe most evident transformational experience in my life, occurred during my senior year in high-school. During that year, I had a lot going for me. Of course I knew it as I displayed my pretentious attitude. I was very popular during this time, because I was doing well in school, and performing excellent on the cross country team. With college in my sight I felt things were falling into place for me. All this was disrupted on October fifteen of that year when I was involved in a serious farm accident, which nearly cost me my arm. As a result I was confined to the UW Hospital for nearly a month for recovery and rehabilitation. Being in this situation had put me in a state of depression, because I had such high hopes of meeting certain goals during my last year of high school. I felt my life took a turn for the worst. The lesson I learned came about a week after my accident, when the patient next door decided to drop by to say hello. He was a very happy, elderly, fellow that walked with a limp. When he came in my room I noticed right away that he had no fingers. He was trying to cheer me up, after I told him what had happen to me, but what ever he said, didn't seem to help. Then he showed me his artificial legs and my jaw literally hit the ground. At that point I knew how much of a self centered baby I was being. I knew, that If this person could be happy after all the trauma he's endured, I could be happy too. During that month in the hospital, I grew more as a adult, then during any other period in my life.

This experience was also significant, because it motivated me to start learning about myself. I've found learning about myself to be important, because it enables me to understand how I think and behave the way I do. Through this experience, I've discovered that the first step to understanding other individuals is understanding yourself. In addition, by having a better understanding of myself, I've taught myself how to become a better learner.

In reading the Clark article I started to think of the types of tools teachers can use to facilitate transformational learning. I believe one of the most effective tools in developing this transformative mode of learning is journaling. It doesn't matter if what a student writes is wrongheaded, dumb, silly, or incomprehensible, as long as it represents some investment or risk. I've learned allowing the opportunity to take risks is where journaling provides its greatest potential to enhance learning. I've realized from my experience with CMC this semester that no other thinking tool can enable a student to effectively go on a limb to relate abstract ideas, develop hypothesis, or deeply reflect upon information better than journaling.

Mary Helen,

Thankyou for the last comment. It made me reflect upon my years growing up as a teenager. The montonous routine 14 hour days, seven days a week used to drain life's meaning, while wooking for my father during the summer. I can't imagine what he feels inside after farming for over thirty -five years. I could always remember him saying, when things get difficult, you stick with it and work harder to make it work. To this day I agree with his philosophy, but only if the happiness factor is present.

Just wanted to let everyone know that I've learned a lot from your comments over the last week. Especially thanks to Mary Helen and Phil for some excellent insights on transformation. We're finishing the semester at Platteville now, so I have had more student commitments (office hours, make up exams, etc.) than usual. Not making excuses--just apologizing for lurking more than "speaking" this week. Hope everyone has a great weekend. Enjoy the smow! Machelle

Yes, Phil, I think that measurement is part of the problem with Kolb. I think you can do a better assessment of

a person's learning preferences through an interview and their own reflections.

I've been thining a lot about this and for me, th one that stands out the most is learning to read. I was sick and no one had time to read to me. I was desprerate to hear "Chatter, the Red Squirrel" and so, I decided to read it for myself. I remember being surprised that I could. (I was 4+) Reading totally reshaped my world. I cannot imagine what the world is like for those who cannot or do not read. Reading moves me to places I might no ever explore and serves to change moods, comfort and stimulate. Would never want to live without it. It seems like my most reliable friend.

Mary Helen, thanks for the info. Found it helpful in articulating things I have been thinking about but was unsure how to express.

I have also been thinking about how Gladys is so like many of the women I knew who were my mother's age. Change and growth seems for many of them a fate worse than death. I have such difficulty understanding that. And, I am certain that I am sometimes mean in my lack of understanding. It is so different from how I experience the world, but I do not have a right to push my view nad needs upon them. That is, at times, very hard for me to remember.