EdTech'98 Proceedings: McLoughlin - students' perceptions of learning at a distance using technology

Participation, cooperation and autonomy: Students' perceptions of learning at a distance using technology

Catherine McLoughlin
Edith Cowan University

In Western Australia, telecommunications and information technology are being used to provide educational services to students in rural and remote schools. The paper reports on the insights and responses of a group of students who accessed the gifted and talented program via telematics during 1996-1997, using audiographic conferencing. For these learners, this was their first experience of learning at distance. Students reported a strong sense of autonomy and self-direction which was a result of having an 'invisible teacher'. In addition, a great deal of feedback was obtained on students' own learning styles, the impact of technology on learning and the growth of cooperative work across geographically separated classrooms.
The implications of these findings are analysed in terms of how distance learning settings affect communication styles and how technology serves collaborative learning. It is recommended that recognising and admitting the student voice as part of the planning process is important for educational contexts where technology is used to support learning.

Introduction

The potential of communications technologies to deliver interactive and efficient instruction to remote sites is well documented in the literature (eg., Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Mason, 1994). Nevertheless, several studies also signal the limitations of audiographic conferencing technology and of the pedagogies that it may lead to. Among these are controlling and didactic aspects of teacher pedagogies (Thompson, 1996) and limited use of the technology to support cognitive interaction between students (Oliver & McLoughlin, 1997). Other studies have shown that computer-supported learning environments combined with the application of appropriate pedagogies can ensure quality learning with affective and cognitive outcomes (Repman, 1993). Recent empirical studies show that a great deal of emphasis is placed on current uses of technology to support student autonomy and to create an empowering environment (Alonso & Norman, 1996; Saye, 1997).

The view explored in this paper is that in order to evaluate the success or otherwise of a learning environment, it is important to find out how students perceive the technology, whether they are comfortable with it and whether they regard it as improving or changing the learning experience. Those engaged in educational evaluation might well ask: What difference does computer technology make to the quality of everyday classrooms? Research on student views is sparse, though the question has been asked of teachers (Wild, 1996). The purpose of the research reported here was to explore student perspectives on audiographic conferencing, to allow students to say what worked for them, and to encourage them to share their views of how technology affected their learning. Student attitudes may be good indicators of how technology is perceived, and by sharing their experiences and insights, students enable educators to evaluate technology implementation and its putative transformative effects.

Technology and the potential for student autonomy and empowerment

The debate about how best to integrate computers into the curriculum-based culture of schooling and to foster student autonomy is a recurring theme in the literature. A number of theorists have commented that computers are used in a way that is 'decoupled from the mainstream of classroom life' (Crook, 1994, p. 29). This means that computers are often seen as by teachers as devices for saving time, increasing the efficiency of teaching and learning and instruments for maintaining order and structure (Fraser et al, 1991; Underwood, 1990). One of the major themes that has emerged from recent investigations of technology supported classrooms is the potential of technology to support student-centred learning (Light, 1993; Mercer, 1996). Technology can also be conceived of as providing apprenticeship models of learning, and of enabling students to become increasingly more self-regulated (Jarvela, 1996).

In discussing aspects of effective environments for learning a number of researchers have commented on the need to create the conditions necessary for independent learning. For example, much of the recent literature has referred to the need for 'learner control' in the design and planning of multimedia for learning (Oliver & Reeves, 1996; Kinzie, 1990). Authorship and generativity are further dimensions of learning environments which relate to the amount of choice, control and self-direction given to students (Hannafin & Sullivan, 1995). The degree to which learners can design, create and explore learning materials are important elements in fostering higher levels of thinking. Therefore, environments where learners can share responsibility, show initiative and make decisions are conducive to independent learning (Grabowski, 1996). Jonassen & Reeves (1996, p. 695) talk about the impact of student involvement in computer assisted learning '.. empowering learners to design and produce their own learning experiences is a powerful learning experience'. The dimensions of learner control, generativity, authorship and communicative interaction are all widely accepted features of learning environments that are supportive of learning. Examples of design principles that enable students to develop independent thinking are those that:

have instructional formats that allow learners to have choices within a structured learning experience (eg., Anderson & Garrison, 1995)
offer activities that support both collaboration and communicative independence (Teasley, 1995);
provide activities that enable students to represent their own meanings (Greeno, 1997).

In face-to-face classrooms where the teacher is present there has been a great deal of research into the use of computers to support group work and collaborative dialogue (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins & Campbell, 1995; Anderson, Tolmie & McAteer, 1993). In contrast, distance learning settings which support synchronous communication have received much less research attention, and the computer is often regarded simply as a hardware to enable geographically separated students to interact and share texts and resources (Wagner, 1994). By presenting student perspectives on learning via telecommunications we can establish whether technological link-ups and interaction between sites create forms of student autonomy that change the teaching-learning equation.

What do students think?- Issues of control and empowerment

Studies in technology supported classrooms suggest that student perceptions of the instructor and of the instruction are closely tied to positive or negative evaluations of distance learning settings. Recent studies have investigated several different dimensions of learning mediated by technology. One study, by Jayasinghe, Morrison & Ross (1997) investigated reactions to teachers' immediacy behaviours and found that teachers who established eye contact were more likely to be regarded as warm, persuasive and credible. Similarly, Walker & Hackman (1992) found that learner satisfaction in a telelearning environment was higher when students perceived the learning as interactive. The important implication of these studies is that academic achievement and satisfaction with a course are likely to be greater if students have positive perceptions of the instructor. However, these studies are limited as they do not investigate student perceptions of their own behaviour, their own learning or of the changing culture of the classrooms when technology mediates classrooms.

If we know little about how students think about their own learning, we cannot presume that structural manipulations and technological innovation are sufficient to create independent learning environments for learners. Often, the success or otherwise of technology is interpreted through attrition rates, achievement scores or measures of academic performance. More direct investigations of student opinions seem to be missing from the literature. Despite the paucity of investigations of student views, constructivist theory highlights the central role of student engagement in learning (Harper & Hedberg, 1997). In other studies, the salient factor to emerge is the association between pupils' sense of personal control over their learning and achievement (Hannafin, 1995). In addition, research into effective means of fostering personal control has emphasised learners' capacities for 'self-instruction' (Peterson & Swing, 1992;Wang & Peverley, 1987). For self-instruction to be effective, learners need to feel comfortable and confident with the learning environment and subject matter, and be able to integrate this with planning learning strategies and self-monitoring skills.

Several studies address the question of how teachers can influence learner levels of activity through classroom strategies which create opportunities for pupils to take control of their own learning (Kinzie, 1990; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1993; McLoughlin, Oliver & Wood, 1997). As expressed by one writer:

The issue on education is control. Who is in control? Now it is curriculum designers, lecturers and workbook publishers. In many cases it ought to be students.... The real role of the teacher, computer or human is to keep the environment interesting enough to prompt questions. (Schank & Jona, 1991, p.32).

Educational technologists need to investigate learner perceptions of their environment and whether they regard technology as empowering or disempowering, so that planning for learning can proceed as a learner-centred process. Existing studies on this aspect of learning with technology have not proved consistent or wide ranging. For instance, in technology saturated environments where IT is used extensively and promoted, supported and financed as in the ACOT program, high levels of satisfaction are reported(Fisher, Dwyer & Yocam, 1996). In other, more general populations there is less evidence that technology is used to change teaching practice or empower students.

Participants and setting

Across Australia, a considerable number of schools use audiographic technology to teach classes in rural and isolated areas. According to the Victorian Ministry of Education and Training Report (Conboy, 1991), the term telematics is described as: electronically based equipment and the processes and strategies used to enable interactive teaching and learning between two or more geographically remote locations. In Western Australia the term 'telematics' is used to describe the particular use of audiographic technology to teach students at a distance. The study comprised five linked remote classrooms which received instruction in five different subject areas, Maths, Science, Italian, English and Social Studies.

The research was conducted with fifteen students participating in the Academic Talent Program delivered via audiographic conferencing. Five schools participated in the program, which was delivered from schools in the Perth metropolitan area by specialist subject teachers. Two of the sites had four students, one had two students the other had five students. All students were aged 13 years and all were studying in the first year of secondary school and participating in the Academic Talent Program.

Data collection and analysis procedures

As the curriculum objective of the Academic Talent Program was to develop higher order thinking skills and autonomous learning, it was considered important to ask students how technology affected their learning, and whether it fostered forms of autonomous learning. The research questions therefore focussed on individual and group experiences of learning via audiographic conferencing. The following open-ended questions were asked of students at each site:

How is learning via audiographic conferencing different from learning in the face to face classroom?
How does the technology affect talk and communication in your classroom?
What problems (if any) do you experience with the technology?
Does learning via audiographic conferencing change you as a learner? (ie your learning style and way of communicating).

At the end of each term in the one year program, students were interviewed and asked whether they found the technology constraining or liberating and how it changed their learning patterns. In addition to student interviews, classrooms were observed and videotaped so that their views could be compared with the actual teaching and learning events that were recorded. Each group of students was asked to respond to the questions and the responses are reported in Tables 1, 2 and 3. Open ended questions were used in order to enable students to elaborate on issues considered important.

Summary and interpretation of main findings

Technological change

Table 1 presents a summary of responses to the question: How is learning via audiographic technology different from learning in a face-to-face-classroom? Students were shown to be adaptable to pedagogical change and to be very positive about it. They were also quite resilient to problems that occurred and took the view that they had to learn the skills required when technological difficulties occurred. This expressed tolerance with the technology was attributed to their perception that knowing about technology was a skill in itself, one that was highly relevant to their learning in other subject areas. Clearly, the distance education setting presented challenges to these students, but they were well prepared to meet them. Students were comfortable with the technology and open to the changes it brought in terms of group interaction, communication patterns and learner control.

Table 1: Audioconferencing versus face to face instruction


Location	Responses	Salient feature of response

Site 1 n = 4	more exciting; more independent; teaches us about technology; more freedom; we can talk te each other when we want	independence; freedom to communicate

Site 2 n = 4	more independence; teacher has less control; can say what we like; we can draw things on the computer screen; we have to be really prepared	less teacher control

Site 3 n = 2	it helps us know a lot about computers; we have more freedom; we have to organise ourselves better	need for organisational skills

Site 4 n = 5	I think we are special; we have to troubleshoot; lots more work to do ; the teacher expects us to be ready;	trouble shooting skills; readiness for class

Interaction and communication

Students perceived the technology to have a liberating effect on their learning and interaction. Table 2 summarises responses to research question 2: How does the technology affect talk and interaction in the your classroom? As the teacher was 'invisible' students were less constrained in questioning each other and seeking clarification. They also believed that they could interact with other students in the remote classrooms through the two-way audio channel. In accounting for this perception of increased freedom and autonomy, much can be attributed to the teachers' implementation of strategies to enhance use of technology as a communicative exploratory tool. Overall, students felt a strong sense of autonomy in the electronic classroom, a willingness to prepare for class and organise themselves. Students quickly mastered the etiquette of communicating across distance and the technology seemed to have exercised a strong motivating influence in the classrooms observed.

Table 2: Summary of responses to questions about interaction in the distance classroom


Comment	Interpretation	n (number of responses)

The interaction is freer than it is in a face-to-face classroom.	freedom/autonomy	2

There is a more collaboration and friendship among classmates.	collaboration	3

It is possible to get to know the kids from other remote schools.	rapport	2

The teacher does not always try to lead the discussion. We have plenty of freedom.	student centred	1

It sometimes gets a bit difficult cos you have to wait to speak, and you can't interrupt. You have to work out a way of signalling to the teacher that you have something to say. Then it's OK.	new communication protocols	3

Sometimes you wonder if anyone hears you ... now we have a way of checking that we are heard and we also give feedback to others. That's a new way of talking. You have to make sure that you understand and that others understand what you are saying.	effective listening skills	3

Perceived problems with technology

Despite technical problems, students surveyed seemed to be very positive about the technology and were comfortable using it. In response to research question 3, What problems (if any) did you experience with the technology?, many saw the technology as a bonus: learning in a new way and through use of telematics and while becoming more competent with technology. Their reactions included: I think it's exciting that the school is doing this. After all, that's how people learn nowadays. Many students referred to the experience as doing telematics, a comment which signalled their views that they considered the experience as novel and linked to technology. Another interesting fact that emerged was that students at each site were tolerant of the frequent technological breakdowns that occurred, for example when the modem line failed, or the audio quality was poor. They also seemed sympathetic to teachers who were not always in control of these aspects of the classroom, the breakdowns were interpreted by students a showing that the teacher was not always an expert. One student commented, I guess the teacher is like us: he's learning too. Only one student was concerned that she felt that the technology was a little impersonal, and that it was difficult make a spontaneous remark or response.

Learning through collaboration

In response to question 4, Does learning via audiographic conferencing change you as a learner?(ie., your learning style and way of communicating). Several students mentioned that the style of learning in the electronic classroom helped them engage in independent inquiry and become more self-reliant. Table 3 provides a summary of responses made by students. Many reported that because the teacher was not present, they formed stronger relationships within their groups and learnt how to cooperate on problem solving and other tasks. As one student commented: It's not telematics itself, its the way we do it - a remark which implied that the technology was not a main factor in this change of orientation to learning. Instead, the pattern of interaction had changed to one where there was less reliance on teacher direction and more cooperative discussion within the group. Students had a clear sense of empowerment through technology, the evidence for which was their varied comments. Students were also aware of the different learning styles needed in the electronic classroom and of the increased responsibility for their own learning, as the teacher was not there to monitor and supervise them. Most students acknowledged that this increased freedom helped them to share ideas, support each other and develop better study habits. All students recognised the increased autonomy and saw it as providing greater scope for them to achieve group outcomes and engage in discussion.

Table 3: Perceived differences in the quality of learning in the electronic classroom


Nature of view	Comment

Empowerment	We have more freedom in class /the teacher is less controlling. We have to be more independent cos we don't have the teacher with us. The teacher can't solve problem for us- he's not here exactly, so we have learnt to figure it out for ourrselves. I realised that I learn better this way. I mean, you have to figure it out for yourself when in the long run.

Collaboration	We have to talk more to each other than to the teacher. I know there is help there when we need it. But we try to help each other. One great thing is that we can bounce ideas of each other. We share ideas and get more ideas. I think we have become really good mates and we do help each other a lot, like we even read each other's essays- wow! Lie when I don't understand something, I rely first on my classmates instead of asking the teacher

Dialogue and conversation	Really what is different is that we talk a lot and share ideas. Discussion is a big part of the way we learn, and its new to us. We are all probably better listeners now. You have got to be able to explain your views and make connections.

Higher order thinking	There is a sharing of ideas and we are becoming more questioning of each other. The teacher expects us to criticise ideas and to develop our own work. Learning this way makes more demands - you have to be more independent minded- at the same time, you have to collaborate. We try to balance ideas off each other try to give each other feedback and to be better learners.

The comments in Table 3 are representative of a larger concern for students. They valued the change in the experience of learning, but saw the technology as only a small element in this equation. Most of the empowerment was seen to come from their own camaraderie, from their relationships within the group and from their determination to succeed despite the technological problems that occurred. There were few expressions of communicative apprehension, and this finding indicated that protocols had been established by the teachers to enable participation and communication between groups. Students were comfortable with the shift from more traditional methods of instruction and perceived this as empowering.

Conclusion

In this case study, students reported a strong sense of a classroom community which extended beyond each isolated classroom and incorporated the distributed network of classrooms involved in the Academic Talent Program for rural and remote schools in Western Australia. This could have been reflective of teachers' effective use of the technology to shift responsibility from the teacher to the students. An investigation of teacher pedagogy and belief systems could identify whether there was congruence between the perception of autonomy by students and teachers ' beliefs and desire to foster autonomy and independence in telematics classrooms. It may also be an indication that the teachers in the study modelled effective technology use for students. Both of these issues could be pursued in a further study.

Previous studies show that cultural perceptions of technology and learning persist in the classroom and that students often arrive in class with well developed, often resilient notions of what teaching and learning are and that their views are often reflective of a traditional paradigm of instruction (Sheingold et al, 1990; McHenry & Bozik, 1995). In contrast to these studies, the students in the present study were found to be strongly constructionist in their orientation. They saw learning as organised around sharing and refinement of ideas, collaboration and construction of ideas through group discussion.

The findings contribute to existing evaluations of audiographic conferencing environments and suggest that empowering learning can be achieved by the instructional intention to move beyond the technical link, to develop systems to support students to act independently, reason, communicate, and share ideas. In this sense, the case study presented here can be seen in the context of the larger debate on how technology changes student roles in a distributed classroom. But most important, it shows that by eliciting student concerns and opinions of technology, insights can be gained about the dynamics of inquiry and interaction. Listening to the student voice is therefore an important pursuit for teachers and educational technologists.

References

Alonso, D. L., & Norman, K. L. (1996). Forms of control and interaction as determinants of lecture effectiveness in the electronic classroom. Computers and Education, 27(3/4), 205-214.

Anderson, T. D., & Garrison, D. R. (1995). Transactional issues in distance education: The impact of design in audioconferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 27-45.

Conboy, I. (1991). The telematics manual. Victoria: Ministry of Education.

Cooper, P., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Commonality in teachers' and pupils' perceptions of effective classroom learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 63, 381-399.

Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge.

Fisher, C., Dwyer, D. C. & Yocam, K. (Eds.). (1996). Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.

Fraser, R., Burkhardt, H., Coupland, J., Phillips, R., Pimm, D. & Ridgeway, J. (1991). Learning activities and classroom roles with and without the micro-computer. In Computers and Learning, 205-228. Wokingham, UK: The Open University.

Grabowski, B. (1996). Generative learning: Past, present and future. In D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and telecommunications, 897-919. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Greeno, J. P., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about presentational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361-367.

Hannafin, R. D., & Sullivan, H. J. (1995). Learner control in full and lean CAI programs. Education, Technology. Research and Development, 43(1), 1042-1629.

Harper, B., & Hedberg, J. (1997). Creating motivating interactive learning environments: A constructivist view. In R. Kevill, R. Oliver, & R. Phillips (Ed.), What works and Why? ASCILITE '97, 11-32. Perth, WA: Curtin University of Technology.

Jarvela, S. (1995). The cognitive apprenticeship model in a technologically rich learning environment: Interpreting the learning interaction. Learning and Instruction, 5, 237-259.

Jayasinghe, M. G., Morrison, G., & Ross, S. M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4), 5-19.

Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.

Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonasssen (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and telecommunications, 693-719. New York: Scholastic Press.

Kinzie, M. B. (1990). Requirements and benefits of effective interaction instruction: Learner control, self-regulation and continuing motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 5-21.

Light, P. (1993). Collaborative learning with computers. In P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Language, Classrooms and Computers, 40-56). London: Routledge.

McHenry, L. & Bozik, M. (1995). Communicating at a distance: A study of interaction in a distance education classroom. Communication Education, 44(4), 362-371.

McLoughlin, C., Oliver, R. & Wood, D. (1997). Teaching and learning in telematics environments: Fostering higher level thinking outcomes. Australian Educational Computing, 12(1), 9-15.

Mason, R. (1994). Using communications media in open and flexible learning. London: Kogan Page.

Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 345-377.

Oliver, R. & McLoughlin, C. (1997). Interactions in audiographics teaching and learning environments. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 34-55.

Oliver, R. & Reeves, T. (1996). Dimensions of effective interactive learning with telematics for distance education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(4), 45-57.

Peterson, P., & Swing, P. (1992). Beyond time on task: Students' reports of their thought processes during classroom instruction. Elementary School Journal, 82(2), 481-491.

Repman, J. (1993). Collaborative, computer-based learning; Cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(2), 149-163.

Saye, J. (1997). Technology and educational empowerment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 5-24.

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68.

Schank, R. C. & Jona, M. Y. (1991). Empowering the student: New perspectives on the design of teaching systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 7-35.

Sheingold, K., Hawkins, J. & Char, C. (1991). 'I'm the thinkest, you're the typist': The interaction of technology and the social life of classrooms. In O. B.-B. &. E. Scanlon (Eds.), Computers and learning, 174-185. London: Croom Helm.

Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children's peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 207-220.

Thompson, D. (1996). Audioteleconferencing: Myths and realities. Open Learning, 17(2), 20-27.

Underwood, J. D. M. & Underwood, G. (1990). Computers and learning. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.

Walker, K. & Hackman, M. (1992). Multiple predictors of perceived learning and satisfaction: The importance of information transfer and non-verbal immediacy in the televised course. Distance Education, 13(1), 81-92.

Wang, M., & Peverley, S. (1987). The self-instructive process in classroom learning contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 370-404.

Wild, M. (1996). Technology refusal: Rationalising the failure of student and beginning teachers to use technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 134-143.

Please cite as: McLoughlin, C. (1998). Participation, cooperation and autonomy: Students' perceptions of learning at a distance using technology. In C. McBeath and R. Atkinson (Eds), Planning for Progress, Partnership and Profit. Proceedings EdTech'98. Perth: Australian Society for Educational Technology. http://www.aset.org.au/confs/edtech98/pubs/articles/mcloughlin1.html

[ Proceedings Contents ] [ EdTech'98 Main ]
© 1998 The author and ASET.
This URL: http://www.aset.org.au/confs/edtech98/pubs/articles/mcloughlin1.html
Created 20 Mar 1998. Last revision: 18 Apr 2003. Editor: Roger Atkinson
Previous URL 20 Mar 1998 to 30 Sep 2002: http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/gen/aset/confs/edtech98/pubs/articles/m/mcloughlin1.html