As an example, students with low ability levels may be able to reach their. ZPD with a help of ..... It can communicate by email and over the Web; thus no longer need to meet face to face. The .... 31, 2004, from http://www. cade.icaap.org/vol115.1/carr.html. 10. .... Bulletproof instructional design: A model for blended learning.
Journal of Educational Research Educational Research Institute, Kongju National University, Korea ISSN: 1738-2246, Vol. 26 (2), February, 2012, pp. 177-201
Designing interactive and collaborative e-Learning environments for TVET Md. Abu Raihan*(Islamic University of Technology) Han Seung Lock† (Kongju National University)
< Abstract > This article is an outcome of the study conducted on instructional design. Despite the increasing number of online courses, there have been several concerns and criticisms related to teaching and learning in e-learning. Previous research has suggested that students are often dissatisfied and frustrated with their e-learning courses. A more important issue is that elearning has not lead to pedagogical changes. A large percentage of e-learning courses have been developed to deliver simple factual knowledge through tutorial-based instruction. In seeking a paradigm shift from information delivery-centered to learner-centered e-learning approaches, this article suggests that theoretically and empirically grounded design frameworks are required, and that strategies for interactive and collaborative learning should be considered and incorporated in designing learner-centered environments for TVET. To identify instructional design strategies, the author critically reviewed and analyzed relevant case studies. The purpose of the article was to identify effective instructional facility using process of interactions and collaborations and to construct strategies models of interactive and collaborative e-learning framework for TVET. In this regards five design models are presented with specific strategies and examples: (i) Make available option for collaborations; (ii) Decrease obstruction of communication; (iii) Boost learner’s perceived level of social presence; (iv) Arrange an effective academic e-learning atmosphere and (v) Prepare and utilize the synchronous e-learning toolbox. The instructional designers, teachers, students will be highly benefited to perceive the design models presented for e-learning to ensure its environments.
Keyword: Interactive and collaborative learning, e-learning, e-learning environment, Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET)
*
Assistant Professor (on leave), Department of ITS, IUT, Gazipur, Bangladesh ([email protected])
†
Professor, Department of Education, KNU, South Korea ([email protected])
,
I.
Introduction
Today learners are expected to be lifelong learners. Learning is no longer seen as a passive and abstract issue to complete in isolation. Recently it is rather seen as an ongoing and meaningful process that contains manipulating different didactic tools, collaborating with others and motivating oneself to complete the tasks required. The focus thus tends to be on the activity of the learner. In that way, regulation of the learning process is strongly promoted (Hurme & Järvenoja, in press 2010). Motivation is perceived as a multidimensional and multilevel construct (Rienties et al., 2009). One possible definition says: "To be motivated means to be moved to do something" (Deci & Ryan, 1985). During the past decade, there has been a significant movement toward e-learning in higher education and corporate training. Statistics show that 81% of higher education institutions in USA offer at least one online or blended learning course, indicating that e-learning has been adopted as one of major instructional delivery methods (Allen & Seaman, 2003). University courses have been restructured by adding Web-based components in order to solve problems related to overworked faculty, over-capacity of classrooms, and lack of interactions in conventional lecture-based courses (Tiangha, 2003). Similarly, corporate sectors have tried to reduce training budgets and staff by converting instructor-led, classroom-based training programs to online learning formats. Recently, blended learning, which combines face-to-face and online course components, has emerged as a new generation of distance education, and increasing numbers of companies are delivering their training programs using both e-learning and traditional method (Dolezalek, 2005) Despite the increasing numbers of online courses, however, there have been several concerns and criticisms related to teaching and learning in e-learning environments. Previous research has suggested that students are often dissatisfied and frustrated with their overall learning experiences in e-learning courses (Carr-Chellman, Dyer, & Breman, 2000; Hara & Kling, 2000). Students experience technical difficulties; lack of interactions with instructors and peers; and lack of course structures and support, which all could be attributed to high dropout or incomplete rates in online courses compared to those in residential courses. A more important issue is that e-learning has not led to pedagogical changes (Zemsky & Massy, 2004). Most instructors tend to teach online courses in ways that they teach traditional lecture-based courses. Students have difficulty with self-managing their online learning processes. A large percentage of e-learning courses have been developed to deliver simple factual knowledge through tutorial-based instruction as seen from a wide use of online PowerPoint-type lectures with heavy text information and linear navigations. Furthermore, current e-learning models, based on traditional transmissionist design approaches, have limitations promoting higher-order knowledge and skills required in the 21st century knowledge society (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2006) To overcome aforementioned problems, paradigms underlying current e-learning designs should shift from delivery-centered to learner-centered approaches. Students need to be able to solve complex problems, have critical thinking skills, work effective in terms, and express and adopt diverse perspectives. In seeking this paradigm shift, this paper suggests that advances in the field of e-learning required a theoretically and empirically grounded design framework guiding design decisions, and that instructional design strategies for interactive and collaborative learning should be considered and incorporated in designing learner-centered e-learning environments where
students are actively engaged in their learning processes. The design models that the article presented for TVET system can be used in other educational system as well.
II.
Research questions
Motivation is a crucial aspect to obtain social interaction and collaboration. If there is no motivation, then the chance of social interaction and real collaboration is not optimal. In addition, members’ satisfaction with the processes of group interactions and learning is likely to affect future participation in online supported collaborative learning (Overdijk & van Diggelen, 2008). Although there has been a common concern with understanding more about student motivation in the context of learning technologies, relatively little research has paid attention to how motivation arises in social contexts such as designing e-learning environment (Jones & Issroff, 2005; Järvelä et al., 2010). Therefore the authors want to explore this subject. It is seen that motivation distinguishes between two notions, (1) motivation as an individual characteristic that is influenced by the collaborative context and, (2) on the other side, motivation as socially constructed through collective engagement. Although both dimensions and processes are important for collaborative learning it has chosen to stress motivation as embedded within the shared processes of learning. More specifically, the author to explore the following questions: a.
What is meant by interaction and collaboration in instructional setting?
b.
What is missing in current practices of e-learning?
c.
What are the factors should consider designing e-learning environments for TVET?
d.
How can instructional designers develop more interactive and engaging e-learning environments?
III.
Methodology
Objectives: The main objectives of the article is (i) to examine how e-learning courses have been designed and implemented in order to support students’ engaging and interactive learning (ii) to define collaborative learning and its usefulness especially in the field of Technical-Vocational Education and Training (TVET) (iii) to identify effective instructional facility using process of interactions and collaborations and finally (iv) to construct strategies models of interactive and collaborative e-learning framework for TVET. Methodology: As an education research on instructional design the study holds a significant position as a theoretical study on interactive and collaborative e-learning environment for TVET. In order to give an advanced answer to the research questions, the author decided to analyze and to explore a representative part of the existing scientific literature about e-learning to design the learning environments for TVET. Because this topic is recently receiving more attention, thus the reading material is up to date. A body of theoretical and applied research relating to teaching and learning were drawn on many disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, and sociology. Moreover, the author studied a lot of information’s on e-learning. E-learning is the new phenomena to use it in TVET system. Thus, a number of research articles, hand books of instructional design were reviewed carefully. In this regards, the author looked for the information upholds by the digital sources. The past research approaches, relevant theories,
and thought given by the educationists were also observed. Despite all the recent activity, models for how people teach and learn online are still immature. Thus, the study was significant as it was the first hand study on design elearning environments for TVET system.
IV.
Theoretical background and definition
It is important to understand the theories and meanings underlying the terms interaction and collaborative learning before looking at specific design strategies. Even though interaction and collaboration are common terms often used in e-learning contexts, a lack of functional definitions has been a serious problem in forming basic and shared ideas among researchers and practitioners. This section discusses definitions and theoretical background supporting interactive and collaborative learning and provides working definition used in this article. Interaction: Moore (1989) emphasized the need for a clear and functional definition by stating that “Interaction is another important term that carries so many meanings to be almost useless unless specific sub-meanings can be defined and generally agreed upon (p.1).” Similarly, Wagner (1994) argued that functional definitions of interaction should be formulated to provide a basis for empirical measurement of interaction. She suggested that conceptual framework on interaction are related to (1) learning theory, (2) instructional theory, (3) instructional design theory, and (4) instructional delivery theory. While learning theory describes the role of instruction in the human learning process, instructional theory provides prescription as to how to facilitate interaction in specific situations. Instructional design theory, on the other hand, emphasizes a systemic process of analyzing and designing various levels and types of interaction to achieve specific learning outcomes. Instructional delivery theory, such as the Shannon-Weaver Communication Model (1949, as cited in Wagner, 1994), provides an important understanding of communication process among learner, instructor, content, and environment. Moore’s (1989) three types of interaction, probably the most frequently cited framework, focuses on learning events and propose the following: (1) learner and content interaction, (2) learner and instructor interaction, and (3) learner and learner interaction. The interactions between leaner and content and between learner and instructor are interactions involving human factors that have been important characteristics in defining learning and teaching processes. The interaction between learner and other learners has been discussed as an effective but challenging instructional strategy. Advances in communication technologies have made online collaborative learning possible (Harasim, 1990), and must work has been done to facilitate collaborative interaction among learners (e.g., Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2002; Kitchen & McDougall, 1998). In addition to the three types of interaction mentioned previously, Hiillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) presented interaction between learner and interface as the fourth type of interaction. They stressed that “the learner must interact with the technological medium to interact with the content, instructor, or other learners (p.33).” This view is based on the assumption that media do affect learning (Koza, 1991). Hillman and his colleagues suggested that a medium affects the forms of interaction particularly when learners are unfamiliar with communication
technologies used to deliver instruction. Lastly, vicarious interaction is another important type of interaction. As vicarious learning involves active observations of other actors’ behaviors, vicarious interaction occurs when learners observe the process of interaction between other learners and instructors (Sutton, 2000). A study by Zhang and Fulford (1994) supported the validity of vicarious interaction. They found that learner’s perception of interaction was generally influenced by their observations of other students rather their actual amount of time spent for interaction. Today the experimental platform to explore how far Internet based education can facilitate instruction and provide tools to improve both teaching and learning as a collaborative learning environment. Collaborative Learning: The social-constructivist view of learning argues that people construct their knowledge through negotiating meanings with others. According to Vygotsky (1978) , a person’s cognitive development is highly dependent on their relationship with others. The zone of proximal development (ZPD)- “the distance between actual or independent problem solving and performance when provided with learning assistance from adults or more capable peers” (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998, p.36) – implies that people construct their knowledge through social interaction and collaboration with others. As an example, students with low ability levels may be able to reach their ZPD with a help of advanced and high-achieving peers or through guidance from their teachers.
[Picture-1] Collaborative leaning network connected with multiple human brains
Collaborative learning is one of instructional strategies used for the social construction of knowledge and skills. There are several advantages of collaborative learning. Collaborative learning environments provide opportunities for students to experience multiple perspectives from others who have different backgrounds. Students can develop critical thinking skills through the process of judging, valuing, supporting, or opposing different viewpoints (Fung, 2004). Another advantage is that individual students can develop social and interpersonal skills, which are critical to be successful in modern society. In terms of affective advantages, collaborative learning approaches can provide students with an affective support and a sense of belonging, promoting student participation and communitybuilding (Stacey, 1999). In this article the working definitions of the terms interaction and collaborative learning are: Interaction: A reciprocal communication and learning process between humans or between human and nonhuman to achieve a certain goal. Collaborative learning: An instructional approach in which small number of
learners interacts together and shears their knowledge and skills in order to reach a specific learning goal. The definition of interaction provided here considers both learning events and learning outcomes, and both human and non-human interactions. Human-to-human interactions include learner-instructor, learner—other learner (s), and learner-learner him or herself, while learner interactions with content and interface are considered as human to nonhuman interaction. Communication patterns could be one-on-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many in a given learning context. The working definition of collaborative learning emphasizes active exchange of knowledge and skills among learners and their engaged activities for shared learning goals. It is important for teachers to be aware of the benefits of interactive and collaborative instructional design methodologies. These methodologies can be utilized effectively in learner-centered environments which are very much needed in TVET system, especially in its subject areas that involve teaching students real-life skills, authentic assessment techniques and hands-on learning activities. Interactive and collaborative learning environments can be very beneficial to student learning for the following reasons: (1) Students are more inclined to be interested and active in the learning process. (2) Students can develop a sense of community among peers. (3) Students are given an opportunity to construct their own knowledge base. (4) Students can develop multiple learning capabilities better. Learning is a social activity at any age level and therefore collaborative learning in the TVET classroom enhances the learning experience for the students.
V.
Why interactive and collaborative learning require in TVET?
The interactive environment makes use of varied learning styles, so that students who typically prefer to read and listen instead do something with the information, collaborate with others or create something new. Because students are engaged with the materials rather than simply memorizing the information, the learning is deeper and more lasting. More engagement means more time is spent on the learning task. Students cannot daydream or disengage in an interactive environment. As interactive learning becomes more user-based, the potential is nearly limitless. The learning matches the student rather than the student needing to accommodate the learning preferences of the instructor. Students use the learning style that is most effective for them. For example, technology-based interactive learning is self-paced, so students can move quickly through review material and focus on learning new information. In TVET approach, the students are grouped to carry out a particular task, solve a problem or to produce an output of their learning. They share their experiences and own ideas to the group as they interact with each other in accomplishing a goal. To gain the particular vocational skills the long term retention of learning is required. Thus collaborative learning is need-based in TVET system. In collaborative learning, the students are able to develop their interpersonal and intrapersonal skills as they articulate their thoughts and listen to others, as well. Learning takes place as they convene with their group members and get acquainted with each other's wide range of viewpoints. Proponents of collaborative learning claim that the active exchange of ideas within small groups not only increases interest among the participants but also promotes critical thinking required to solve the scientific problems in TVET.
TVET is the combination of three: to study the scientific theories, laws; to do the practical work by using that knowledge; and to update the knowledge and skill by training. The collaborative learning highly required as the theme of technical education it mean, the science and technologies are frequently changing. The trainers, trainee even develop their technical know-how with interactive and collaborative learning as in that process the participants work together to solve the problems. There is persuasive evidence that cooperative teams achieve at higher levels of thought and retain information longer than learners who work quietly as individuals. The shared learning gives leaner’s an opportunity to engage in discussion, take responsibility for their own learning, and thus become critical thinkers. The study was on TVET as the program is market-oriented and it is the main source of producing technically skilled manpower worldwide. The development of knowledge and technical skills is the foremost concern in TVET that can be effectively advance with interaction and collaboration in e-learning atmosphere. Interactive and collaborative learning can fits in well with the constructivist approach, which develops higher level thinking by stimulates critical thinking. The collaboration build self esteem in students, by enhance creativity and student satisfaction. Moreover, they provide diversified learning experience, promotes a positive attitude toward the subject matter, develops interaction skills, and encourages diversity understanding. Thus, interactive and collaborative learning are significant for TVET.
VI.
Literature review
US Department of Education, (1992) more than 70 major studies by federally sponsored research centers, fieldinitiated investigations, and local districts examining their own practices have demonstrated interactive and collaborative learning's effectiveness on a range of outcomes: (1) positive growth in student achievement, (2) improved relations among different ethnic groups, and (3) mainstreaming students with learning disabilities. According to a survey (2001) conducted by the European Training Village (ETV) of 446 trainers and Technical and Vocational Education (TVE) teachers, a surprisingly high amount of training for e-trainers is already taking place. 60% have undertaken some form of informal self-development. 30.5% have had formal classroom-based training, 18.6% formal web based training programmes, Just over 17% of the training that respondents received were for developing ICT skills, 24.2% in the 'exploration of new pedagogical approaches in e-learning. As Collins, Harkin and Nind (2001) have found in their study that “good learning is collaborative both because of the centrality of communication for learning and because thinking is, itself, a social practice” (p.110). Brunk-Chavez and Miller (2006) research revealed, collaborative learning can empower the student and “encourages exploratory talk” (p.5), which is above and beyond its role as an assessment tool. U.S. Department of Education (2009) research report on collaborative learning showed that the “most effective interactive learning occurs with all three types: (1) learnercontent, (2) learner-instructor and, (3) learner-learner of interaction are used.” After reviewed a number of related literatures it has explicitly observed that the collaborative learning has the positive growth in students’ achievement as well as the students’ empowerment. Research reviews showed that good
learning is collaborative learning which encourages the exploratory talk. Also, e-learning through collaborativeways is indispensable and so high amount of training for e-trainers are taking place.
VII.
Interactive and collaborative e-learning models for TVET
Different terminologies have been used for e-learning, a fact that makes it difficult to develop a generic definition. E-learning is defined as instructional content or learning experiences delivered or enabled by electronic technology (Aydin & Tasci, 2005). Terms that are commonly used include "online learning", "internet learning", "distributed learning", "networked learning", "tele-learning", "virtual learning", "computer-assisted learning", "webbased-learning", and "distance learning". All of these terms imply that the learner is at a distance from the tutor or instructor and other learners and that some form of support is provided to learners (Sharifabadi, 2006). Therefore, in brief, e-learning can be redefined as a type of learning for off-site learners by means of electronic technology. Elearning can improve retention, provide immediate feedback and allow learners to customize learning materials to meet their individual needs (Uhomoibhi, 2006; Kirsh, 2002; Turk & Robertson, 2000). Assessment reinforces the learning approach a student adopts and is an indispensable part of teaching and learning. The big challenge of e-learning is to bridge the educational efforts and promote intercultural understanding and exchange in the globe. Due to the bless of e-learning, teachers and learner’s from the schools have taken part in collaborative activities, opened their doors to their partner schools, worked together online, improved learning and teaching skills and celebrated the project work. However, it is claimed that e-learning in collaborative settings is more complex than face-to-face settings because of the challenges collaborative learning creates. Therefore, strong motivation becomes a prerequisite for e-learning. More specifically, it has notice that constant negotiation and argumentation emerges between the participants (Tai, 2008). The importance of pedagogically sound methods in the design of interactive learning has been emphasized by several researchers. Berge (1999) suggested that the quality of interaction is enhanced by teaching methods specifically designed for interactive instruction. Hirumi (2002) made a similar argument that e-learning objective. Clearly, meaningful interaction in e-learning environments needs the implementation of effective instructional design and teaching strategies as well as the function of interactive learning technologies. Then, an important issue is how to design such interactive and collaborative learning experiences different from traditional didactic are required when designing e-learning environments. This article constructed the following five instructional design model and strategies:
Model 1 : Make available option for collaborations
Model 2 : Decrease obstruction of communication
Model 3 : Boost learner’s perceived level of social presence
Model 4 : Arrange an effective academic e-learning atmosphere
Model 5: Prepare and utilize the synchronous e-learning toolbox
Design model and strategies for interactive and collaborative e-learning Models 1.
Make available option for collaborations
Strategies Present authentic and relevant problems, Require individual accountability
2.
Decrease obstruction of communication
Create shared group spaces, Motivate students to participate in online discussion
3.
4.
5.
Boost learner’s perceived level of social
Employ a variety of “get-to-know each other”,
presence
Model social presence behaviors
Arrange an effective academic e-learning
Provide
atmosphere
Internet/Intranet for accelerate academic tasks
Prepare and utilize the synchronous e-learning
Provide synchronous communication, Facilitate
toolbox
uploading /downloading the information
multiple
communication
tools,
use
Model 1 : Make available option for collaborations The previous literature is suggesting that learning outcomes in collaborative online learning could be equal or superior to those in traditional face-to-face courses (Harasim, 1990). In general the following factors could affect student dissatisfaction and frustration in online courses: (1) unclear expectation from the instructors, (2) tight timeline, (3) workload, (4) poor software interface, (5) slow access, and (6) no synchronous communication (Gaddis, Napierkowsk, Guzman, & Muth, 2000; Kitchen & McDougall, 1998). Review of studies on collaborative online learning clearly revealed that assigning students to groups does not necessarily mean that they would work collaboratively. Collaborative learning should be structured under the full understanding and consideration of grouping strategies, team-building activities, collaborative tasks, online discussions and evaluation methods. When students are engaged in well-designed collaborative tasks, their learning and satisfaction can be greatly enhanced. Collaborative learning is the most appropriate with authentic ill-structured problems. The authenticity of collaborative tasks becomes more important for students studying in academic areas where the primary goal is to acquire and apply skills and knowledge required in real-work environments, such as analytical, communication, and interpersonal skills. Additionally, an important advantage of real-world projects is that students have opportunities to learn how to shear and accommodate multiple viewpoints. The researchers found that students who worked collaboratively on solving problems performed significantly better than those who worked individually. Students in TVET course were highly satisfied with the realism of the problems and indicated the possibility of knowledge transfer to their professional lives. There would be two possible reasons for unsuccessful cases of using authentic problems. First, authentic tasks often require students to use higher-order problem-solving skills, which cannot be learned in a short duration of time
(Carr-Chellman et al., 2000) Secondly, students without prior experience in authentic and collaborative tasks may experience difficulties in their group problem solving processes. The following strategies may be used in implementing problem-based instruction: (1) start with a simple problem and then gradually build complexity into subsequent collaborative tasks, and (2) help students see the connection between group tasks and personal interests. Student perceptions of collaborative learning can be positively influenced by group members’ accountability. Individual accountability includes two aspects: (1) learners’ responsibility for their own learning, and (2) learners’ responsibility for helping group members’ learning (Abrami, 2001). Slavin (1995) argued that collaborative learning is successful when students recognize their group members’ contributions and are rewarded based on individual accountability. To ensure individual accountability, instructors need to use a variety of strategies such as group contract, group management plan, and group dynamics report. Course instructors should use both formative and summative peer evaluations so that any problem associated with individual accountability and group dynamics could be solved at the early stage of collaborative learning projects.
Model 2 : Decrease obstruction of communication Diverse ranges of instructional media and technologies have been used to design e-learning environments. The selection of media, however, is constrained by pedagogical, financial, and practical factors. An important issue is how to decide the types of communication technology for supporting interactive and collaborative learning. Gilbert and Moore (1998) suggested that it is essential to define (1) the levels and types of social and instructional interactions and (2) the levels of teacher and student controls. It is important to minimize any communication barriers to reduce student frustrations. Students are taking online courses often feel frustrated with delayed feedback and one-way communication channels. Additionally, technological tools should be provided to students in order to help them share ideas. Scardamalia (2002) contended that the culture of knowledge building should be fostered in learning environments for collaborative and intentional learning. She suggested that the following characteristics are essential in socio-cognitive and technological knowledge building environment: (1) knowledge building discourse, (2) Systematic knowledge advancement, (3) constructive use of authoritative sources, (4) real ideas, authentic problems, (5) improvable ideas, (6) idea diversity, (7) rise above, (8) students as epistemic agency, (9) community knowledge, collective responsibility, (10) pervasive knowledge building, (11) democratizing knowledge, and (12) embedded and transformative assessment. These principles of knowledge building can be implemented in e-learning environments to support collaborative learning. Since the use of complex and collaborative tasks often requires students to find additional information to reach solutions, it is useful to provide groups with online spaces where group members can actively present information, exchange resources, and share ideas (Curtis & Lawson, 2001; McAIpine, 2000). A Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE), reengineered as a software program called Knowledge Forum, is an excellent example of an e-learning environment where learners can share and connect their ideas (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). An important aspect of CSILE and Knowledge Forum is the pedagogical approach underlying design features. The design was based on the principles of knowledge building, defined as “the
production and continual improvement of ideas of value to a community, through means that increase the likelihood that what the community accomplishes will be greater than the sum of individual contributions and part of broader cultural efforts” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003, p. 1371). Additionally, CSILE and Knowledge Forum have embedded scaffolds, such as the authors’ theory, to support students’ intentional and inquiry learning. Students can generate ideas using embedded scaffolds, and their ideas can be connected and improve for new knowledge construction.
Model 3 : Boost learner’s perceived level of social presence To promote the appropriate level of social presence and decrease the psychological distance online “get-toknow-you” activities where students can freely post brief introductions and share their personal interests (Curtis & Lawson, 2001). In a completely online course, scheduling one or two early synchronous Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) sessions may be useful for students to have opportunities to introduce themselves and be familiar with their classmates in distant sites. Additionally, ice-breakers and collaborative-game types of activities can be posted online as warm up activities to help students express themselves and feel connected with others. Another strategy to increase the level of social presence is modeling social presence behaviors. Previous research has shown that students have difficulty expressing social presence behaviors in online environments. Specifically, students who are new to e-learning formats are likely to have difficulty expressing their ideas and opinions through CMC tools. This issue may suggest that instructor’s intentional and direct interventions are needed for those students. Various strategies can be used to increase student perceptions of social presence. First, at the beginning of online classes, instructors can train students to comfortably express themselves through various communication tools, Second, instructors can model social presence behaviors such as interactive, affective, and cohesive comments (e.g., calling each other’s name, replying to other postings, self-disclosing, and complimenting behaviors) and demonstrate appropriate etiquette in online communication (Gunawardena & Mclsaac, 2004; Stacey, 2002). Third, guidelines for course participations can be provided to students in order to increase their participation in online learning activities and essentially promote a sense of learning community. For instance, Rovail (2001) suggested that a course participation rubric was effective for encouraging constructive and active exchange of ideas among students, and contributed to reduce student perceptions of psychological distance. With these strategies suggested here, feelings of isolation and frustration with technology can be reduced, and a sense of learning community can be gradually cultivated in e-learning courses.
Model 4 : Arrange an effective academic e-Learning atmosphere The success of e-learning depends on how learning takes place online, that is, the underlying pedagogy and the real value of e-learning lies in our ability to deploy its attributes to train the right people to gain the right knowledge and skills at the right time. The successful implementation of e-learning environments depends on the adherence to underlying principles that are embedded in the e-learning experiences. Though these principles apply to both the e-learning and the traditional classroom delivery method, they are yet to be included in the former. These
pedagogical principles should form the basis for inclusion of features in e-learning management systems. Bixler and Spotts (2000) have identified seven parameters affecting the successful implementation of e-learning: (1) institutional support, (2) course development, (3) teaching and learning, (4) course structure, (5) student support, (6) faculty support, and (7) evaluation and assessment. The availability of strong institutional support is crucial for e-learning deployment and success. The changing roles of staff must be recognized and acknowledged. Support strategies must be developed for management of the transformation processes. Standards must be set and applied consistently. Although the teaching and learning process encourages a flexible and independent approach to knowledge acquisition, the notion of student support is markedly different from the traditional method. Assessment reinforces the learning approach a student adopts and is an indispensable part of teaching and learning. Evaluation and assessment of learning should be based on higher order thinking skills so that students may adopt a deep holistic approach to e-learning (Uhomoibhi, 2006; Twomey, 1996). Basing upon the underlying parameters, the authors have developed the following conceptual academic e-model as depicted in Figure-1:
[Figure-1] An academic e-learning model for TVET
Model 5: Prepare and utilize the synchronous e-learning toolbox In e-learning environments, it is important to provide multiple communication tools, both synchronous and asynchronous, that can be effective methods for accommodating student preferences for different communication styles (Curtis & Lawson, 2001). While asynchronous computer CMC tools, including e-mail and online discussion boards, have been the most popular tools, distance students working on collaborative tasks tend to feel the need for synchronous communication tools. For example, Carr-Chellman et al, (2000) found that, as group projects progressed, some students in their study started to talk via phone because asynchronous CMC tools were not sufficiently effective for group communication. Instructors need to make students aware of what types of communication tools are available and train students to use those tools effectively. Indeed, encouraging students to use various communication channels may be more important than making communication tools available. Any technical problems should be minimized as well. Students often face technical difficulties due to the nature of online learning environments, heavily relying on technology as an instructional and communication medium. Technical problem associated with Web access, software interface, and various tools tend to negatively affect students’ satisfaction levels with collaborative learning (Ragoonaden & Bordeleau, 2000). To make students feel comfortable using CMC tools, instructors can offer training sessions or written guidelines at the beginning of the course and provide appropriate and immediate technical support to students who experience technical difficulties impeding their learning processes. The authors made the following model (Figure:2)in this regards.
[Figure -2] E-learning Toolbox for TVET
It is important to provide synchronous communication channels to minimize any communication barriers. When students perceive that a communication medium has limited capacity for creating intimacy and immediacy between themselves and others, their communication styles are likely to be impersonal. Synchronous communication tools can promote reciprocal awareness among students and create a mutual sense of social interaction (Carr-Chellman et al., 2000). As an example, a study by Van Aalst and Chan (2001) suggested that online discussion without face-toface interactions was difficult to foster collaborative knowledge building between students in Hong Kong and Canada. In this course, videoconferencing was used for compensating the lack of opportunities for face-to-face interactions, overcoming problems of asynchronous communication, and consolidating student understandings. The researchers found that the use of the synchronous communication tool positively affected the perceptions of the learning community among students.
VIII.
Conclusion
Discussion: Interactions and collaborations are effective methods for learning, but research in university context has revealed that it is not always producing results. Learning groups often face multiple types of social and cognitive challenges in collaborative learning. These challenges can arise due to differences in group members’ goals, priorities and expectations. Conflicts can be generated also by group members’ different style of working or communicating and the pressure of the rich cognitive processes of collaborative work, may also create some tensions to the groups’ work. Given these multiple challenges of collaborative learning, there are needs for self, other and co-regulation, in order to progress in task toward goal achievement (Järvelä et al., 2010). The most important and strongest question about interactive and collaborative learning is said to be that why it does not happen more frequently (Crook, 2000). Several significant reasons, can be found, one of which is the level of motivation. As it is known, collaboration presupposes group work in which learners (collaborators) should be responsible for their learning process by themselves (Ruohotie and Nokelainen, 2003). In the case of collaborative learning the groups of four or five members work best. Larger groups decrease each member's opportunity to participate actively. The less skillful the group members and if the shorter amount of time available the smaller the groups should be (Cooper, 1990; Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1991; Smith, 1986). "If I do group work, I won't be able to cover as much material during the semester as I do when I lecture." Yes, adding group work may mean covering fewer topics. But research shows that students who work in groups develop an increased ability to solve problems and evidence greater understanding of the material. Some instructors assign additional homework or readings or distribute lecture notes to compensate for less material "covered" in class (Cooper, 1990). It can communicate by email and over the Web; thus no longer need to meet face to face. The process of globalization has complicated matters where (mostly) young people tend to define their identity – and ‘lifestyle’ in terms of Shopping malls, Western-style jeans and T-shirt, Nike athletic shoes, McDonald’s first-food outlets, Starbucks coffee shops, iPhone in hand and so on. The more connected we are, the more isolated we are. The connectivity or isolation paradox is manifesting itself in many aspects of the professional and personal lives and is a fundamental reason why e-learning programs can be unsatisfying to instructors and learners. However, there
have a lot of merits and good results of interactive and collaborative learning if it designed perfectly with e-learning amenities and technologies. Teaching by “Touch and Teach” is the key apprehension of the 21th century learner’s to bridge the gap of digital divide worldwide. Conclusion: Many trainers want to learn about this new medium in the comfort of familiar surroundings. At present all of the courses for trainers are classroom-based, although it will shift to online delivery as demand increases. Research continues to show that a global shortage of skills is holding back companies from implementing and benefiting from e-learning this is not just the USA, UK need, it’s world-wide.
Thus, learner-interface
interaction in e-learning for TVET is a complex and a laborious job. Though it is not bulletproof instructional design yet the idea and thought cited the article can be apply in TVET system. Nevertheless, successful implementation of e-learning environments helps in bridging the digital divide through a wide-ranging approach to digital environment across the world. If implementation of e-learning addresses some of the fundamental issues, for instance, infrastructure, digitization, curriculum designs, content developments and evaluation of students. One of the prominent trends in higher education and corporate training is the convergence of distance and traditional education. Bleed (2001) suggested that the future model of higher education is a hybrid campus with “half bricks and half clicks” (p.18). In business settings, many people also expected that e-learning can be a pragmatic and cost-effective approach that meets the needs of fast-changing business environments. While accessibility, flexibility, and efficiency are the most frequently mentioned advantages of e-learning, more and more people are realizing that simply turning classroom courses into online learning format do not necessarily provide students with more accessible and flexible learning experiences. Furthermore, the development and implementation of e-learning is a complex process which requires great investments of cost and time. It has been frequently reported that planning e-learning takes more time than the amount of traditional face-to-face instruction would take (Jonson, 2002). Nevertheless, poor planning and implementation in several e-learning initiatives resulted in wasting more time and money than those that organizations expected (Troha, 2002). What is missing in current practices of elearning? How can instructors and instructional designers develop more interactive and engaging e-learning environments? So far, much emphasis has been placed on the delivery aspects of hard technology, which concerns the access to instruction and information. Relatively little attention has been paid to design technology, meaning the selection of instructional strategies based on learning and instructional theories. This article suggested that design technology of selecting appropriate instructional strategies should be considered in order to develop interactive and collaborative e-learning environments for TVET. It is important to note that the scope of this article is not to provide a comprehensive instructional design theory or prescriptive design guidelines. Rather, it is intended to examine how e-learning courses have been designed and implemented in order to support students’ engaging and interactive learning. Case studies were reviewed and analyzed to identify effective instructional facilitating the process of interactions and collaborations. Then, strategies models were grouped under the five general design guidelines: (1) Make available option for collaborations (2) Decrease obstruction of communication (3) Boost learner’s perceived level of social presence (4)
Arrange an effective academic e-learning atmosphere and (5) Prepare and utilize the synchronous e-learning toolbox. The model which has generated by the article is not for education specific; even it can be used in any non-formal or informal leaning situation purposefully. As mentioned in the beginning of this article, there is a critical need in the area of e-learning to transform the traditional transmissionist designs in order to support students to gain higher-order knowledge and skills. It is believed that students’ learning experiences in e-learning environments could be more enhance when online instructors and instructional designers consider the design models and strategies discussed here along with the careful analysis of learner characteristic, learning contents, and learning contexts.
References 1.
Abrami, P.C. (2001). Understanding and promoting complex learning using technology. Educational Research and Evaluation. 7 (2-3), 113-136
2.
Allen, E., Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Retrieved February 2, 2004, from http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/sizing_opportunity.pdf
3.
Aydin, C. H. ,& Tasci, D. (2005). Measuring readiness for e-learning: reflections from an emerging country. Educational Technology & Society, 8(4), 97-101.
4.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M (2006). Education for the knowledge age: Design-centered models of teaching and instruction. In P.A. Alexander & P.H. Winner (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp.695-713). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
Berge, Z. (1999). Interaction in post-secondary Web-based learning. Educational Technology, 39(1), 5-11.
6.
Bixler, B., & Spotts, J. (2000). Screen design and levels of interactivity in Web-based training. In Griffin, Robert E., Gibbs, William J., & Wiegmann, Beth (Eds.), Visual Literacy in an Information Age (p. 43). [S.l.]: International Visual Literacy Association.
7.
Bleed, R. (2001). A hybrid campus for the new millennium [Electronic Version]. Education Review. Retrieved February 2, 2004, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf.
8.
Bonk, C.J., & Cunningham, D.J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and socio-cultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C.J.Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaboration (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
Carr-Chellman, A. , Dyer, D., & Breman, J. (2000). Burrowing through the network wires: Does distance detract from collaborative authentic learning? [Electronic Version]. Journal of Distance Education, 15. Retrieved October 31, 2004, from http://www. cade.icaap.org/vol115.1/carr.html
10. Cooper, J. (1990), “Cooperative Learning and College Teaching: Tips from the Trenches.” Teaching Professor , 4(5), 1-2. 11. Crook, C.K, (2000). Motivation and the ecology of collaborative learning. In R. Joiner, K. Littleton, D. Faulkner & D. Miell (Eds.), Rethinking collaborative learning (pp. 161-178). London: Free Association Press.
12. Curtis, D.D. , & Lawson, M.J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 5(1), 21-34. 13. Deci, E. L. , & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum 14. Dolezalek,
H.
(2005).
2005
industry
report.
Retrieved
October
31,
2004,
from
http://www.trainingmag.com/traing/images/pdf/IndustryReport.pdf 15. Fung, Y.H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning, 19(2), 54-72. 16. Gaddis, B., Napierkowsk, H., Guzman, N., & Muth, R. (2000, Octobe). A comparison of collaborative learning and audience awareness in tow computers-mediated writing environments. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communication and technology, Denver, CO. 17. Gilbert, L. , & Moore, D.R. (1998). Building interactivity into Web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29-35. 18. Gunawardena, C.N., & Mclsaac, M.S. (2004). Distance education. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 355-395). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology 19. Hara, N. , Bonk, C.J., & Angeli, C. (2002). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152. 20. Harasim, L.M. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L.M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 39-67). New York: Praeger. 21. Hillman, D.C.A. , Willis, D.J., & Gunawardena, C.N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42. 22. Hirumi, A. (2002). A framework for analyzing, designing and sequencing planned e-learning interactions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 141-160. 23. Järvelä, S., Volet,S. & Järvenoja, H. (2010). Research on motivation in collaborative learning: moving beyond the cognitive-simulative divide and combining psychological and social processes. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 1527. 24. Johnson, D. W. , Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. (1991).Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. ASHE-FRIC Higher Education Report No.4. Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University. 25. Johnson, J. (2002). Reflections on teaching a large enrollment course using a hybrid format [Electronic Version]. Teaching
with
Technology
Today,
8.
Retrieved
February
2,
2004,
from
http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/jjohnson.htm 26. Jones, A. , & Issrof, K. (2005). Learning technologies: affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 44, 395-408.
27. Kitchen, D. , & McDougall, D. (1998). Collaborative learning on the Internet. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 27(3), 245. 28. Koza, R.B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 21(1), 66-80. 29. Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. 30. Overdijk, M. & van Diggelen, W. (2008). Appropriation of a shared workspace: organizing principles and their application. International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 165-192. 31. Ragoonaden, K. , & Bordeleau, P. (2000). Collaborative learning via the Internet [Electronic Version]. Educational Technology
&
Society,
3.
Retrieved
October
1,
2004,
from
http://www.
ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_2000/d11.html 32. Rienties, B. , Tempelaar, D., Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. & Segers, M. (2009). The role of academic motivation in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1195-1206 33. Rovai, A.P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A Case study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(4), 33-48 34. Ruohotie, P. , & Nokelainen, P. (2003). Practical considerations of motivation and computer-supported collaborative learning. In T. Varis, T. Utsumi, and W. R. Klemm (Eds.), Global peace through the global university system (pp. 226-236). Finland: University of Tampere. 35. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collaborative cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in the knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court. 36. Scardamalia, M. , & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference. 37. Sharifabadi, S. R. (2006). How digital libraries can support e-learning. The Electronic Library, 24(3), 389-401. Retrieved March 20, 2009 from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid 38. Slavin, R. F. (1995) "Cooperative Learning." Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315-342. 39. Smith, K. A. (1986),”Cooperative Learning Groups.” In S. F. Schmoberg (ed.), Strategies for Active Teaching and Learning in University Classrooms. Minneapolis: Office of Educational Development Programs, University of Minnesota, 40. Stacey, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 14-33. 41. Sutton, L.A. (2000, April). Vicarious interaction: A learning theory for computer-mediated communications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. 42. Tai, L. (2008). Corporate e-learning: an inside view of IBM's solutions. London: Oxford University Press. 43. Tiangha, T. (2003). Gauntlet news-blended learning: Wave of the future? Retrieved February 2, 2004, from http://www. Gaunt 44. Troha, F.J. (2002). Bulletproof instructional design: A model for blended learning. [Electronic Version]. USDLA Journal, 16. Retrieved February 1, 2004, from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAY02_Issue/article03.html
45. Uhomoibhi, J. O. (2006). Implementing e-learning in Northern Ireland: prospects and challenges. Campus Wide Information
Systems,
23(1),
4-14.
Retrieved
March
24,
2009
from:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid 46. Van Aalst, J. , & Chan, C.K.K. (2001, March). Beyond “sitting next to each other”: A design experiment on knowledge building in teacher education. Paper presented at the first European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 47. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 48. Wagner, E.D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29. 49. Zemsky, R. , & Massy, W. (2004). Thwarted innovation: What happened to e-learning and why. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://www.irhe.upenn.edu/Docs/Jun2004/pdf 50. Zhang, S. , & Fulford, C.P. (1994). Are interaction time and psychological interactivity the same thing in the distance learning television classroom? Educational Technology, 34(6), 58-64
