In Global Peace Through The Global University System

2003 Ed. by T. Varis, T. Utsumi, and W. R. Klemm

University of Tampere, H”meenlinna, Finland

Building Global Community Over the Internet

W. R. Klemm

Texas A&M University, U.S.A.

Abstract

A central premise of a Global University System is the importance of building global communities, not only during the process of formal education, but also during the working years beyond graduation. Such community building will rely heavily on asynchronous Internet communications. Herein, I review the technology options for asynchronous telecommunication: e-mail, discussion boards, and shared document computer conferencing (SDCC) systems. Though discussion boards are the de facto standard today, I predict that SDCC will soon come to dominate distance education, because such systems: 1) use full-featured document editors that support multi-media, and 2) gather and organize information into single coherent documents that are fully shared by authorized groups in which each member can insert, delete, and annotate in specific contexts within the document. SDCC systems support pedagogically richer forms of on-line conversation, such as promoting constructivist learning. Herein, I review a theory of conversation and its application to on-line community building and learning.

Finally, community building in an on-line collegiate environment requires a significant amount of team learning. Herein, I review the formalisms for enabling students to learn together and show how students can construct group deliverables in an Internet environment. Finally, I give many examples from my own on-line teaching experiences of how I have used SDCC systems to promote constructivist team learning.

Community Building via Asynchronous Telecommunications

Distance educators typically recognize the need to build community among students. Most distance educators assign high priority to community building, because of the isolation and relative lack of social support in distance education environments. The Global University System (GUS) likewise faces the same situation, but the unique mission of GUS makes community building imperative. Not only does GUS education extend across nations and cultures, but GUS students need to build networks of associates that will contribute to resolving problems and fulfill the purpose of a GUS education (see Chapter 1 in Part II of this volume).

Why Asynchronous?

Synchronous communication, as for example via telephone or Internet "chat," is educationally important. But it is not always possible. Students and professors have conflicting schedules and in a distance education environment find it difficult to schedule real-time communication either between students and professor or among students. Additionally, in a GUS environment students may live in drastically different time zones.

Asynchronous communication, via e-mail and Internet discussion boards, is extremely popular in distance education, because it enables "anytime, anyplace" communication. Additionally, computer software that supports asynchronous communication provides written documentation of who said what, when, and to whom.

Technologies Available

The options are readily identified:

… E-mail

… Mail list services

… Discussion boards

… Shared-document collaboration systems

My colleague and I have briefly reviewed the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the various technologies (Klemm and Snell, 1994). We can summarize these in the table that follows:

Communication

Technology

Advantages

Disadvantages

E-mail

1. Easy to use

2. Everybody has it

1. Spam

2. Limited formats, graphics

3. Messages arrive by date

4. Not organized automatically

5. Sys-ops periodically purge mail

Mail-list servers

1. Same message can be sent at one time to a whole mail list

1. Ö as above, plus

2. Sys-op has to set it up

3. Users may accidentally send personal mail to whole list

Discussion board

1. Messages are organized by topic

2. Community mailbox, not accessible by outsiders

1. Typically costly (for institution)

2. Usually not much more than organized e-mail

3. Must open & close each item

4. May have limited graphics and multi-media capabilities

5. Cumbersome to know, respond, or annotate the precise context

6. No seamless integration with instructional material

7. Sys-op has to set it up

Shared Document Conferencing

1. Documents created by full-featured word processors

2. Information can be grouped in common documents.

3. Users can insert, delete, and annotate shared documents in context

4. Context is self evident

5. Instructional material can be integrated

1. Can be expensive

2. May be hard to learn, manage

3. Sys-op has to set it up

E-mail, mail list servers, and discussion boards are messaging systems, where notes are mailed from one person to the others or are posted on an electronic bulletin board for others to see. Such communication supports collaboration and community building only in a limited way.

Currently, the discussion board is the de facto standard tool in distance education. Typically, an instructor posts a provocative topic and asks the students to post opinions on the topic. All postings are e-mail messages, differing from regular e-mail in that this is a community mailbox, not readily accessible by unauthorized users such as spammers.

Most of this chapter will be devoted to discussion boards and shared-document computer conferencing (SDCC) systems, because these have the most usefulness for education.

What's Wrong With Discussion Boards

Limited Word Processing

These systems do not typically use a full-featured word processor and in many cases are limited to typing text messages into form fields. As a consequence, students may not be able to create hyperlink interfaces with the Web, insert graphics/sound clips/video clips, run spreadsheets, or perform other educationally valuable activities in the electronic environment.

Awkward Environment for Responding and Dialog

Discussion boards afford only a clumsy way for students to respond to each otherís postings. Students cannot directly edit each otherís messages. There is no way to annotate any given note in context; one must create a new note and place it in the appropriate place in the topic outline. Students cannot even refer to each otherís content without cutting and pasting text from the e-mail being referenced.

Discussion boards organize information only by some arbitrary scheme, such as a topic outline. Specific places in the outline serve as fixed pigeonholes for each message. There is no way to create links outside of the hierarchical outline. Messages attach as notes associated with other notes, rather than as Web-like links to notes associated with specific character strings within a given document. There may also be severe constraints on the use of graphics and multi-media materials. The typical software collects and files messages but does not mediate the group construction of an academic deliverable, such as a group plan, project, report, or case study.

Each discussion board message has to be opened and then closed separately. With many systems, you cannot see what it is in one note while simultaneously viewing the note to which it refers.

Poor Pedagogical Support

These limitations underlie a more serious deficiency in the way discussion boards are used for teaching. As typically used, the bulletin board environment encourages students to express mere opinions. This trivializes learning. Opinions do not promote critical or creative thinking unless they are accompanied by data, and rigorous intellectual analysis.

Commonly, the purpose of on-line discussions is unclear and the expectations are vague. A few students can dominate the discussion. Comments are often weak, irrelevant or off task. No compelling need motivates students to read all the postings and therefore much of the discussion is wasted for many students. I remember an Educational Technology conference presentation where the speaker showed the Contents page of his discussion board, boasting about all the student postings in his course. He failed to point out all the little yellow "new" tags, which indicated that he had not read the contents of those messages. The problems of engaging students in on-line discussion prompted me to specify devices that teachers can use to get students more involved in on-line discussion (Klemm, 1998a).

A major reason for the trivial use of discussion boards is that it is difficult for a group to DO anything on bulletin boards. Teachers find it difficult to use bulletin boards to help student learning teams make a decision, develop a plan, conduct a project, write a report, conduct a case study, construct a portfolio, or most of the other kinds of constructivist activities that rigorous student-student interaction can enable.

Discussion boards do not facilitate the two key pedagogical elements of building learning communities: collaborative learning activities, and performing a constructivist task that creates an educational deliverables. We teachers like to say that we want our students to be creative and critical thinkers, but we opt out when given the opportunity to teach those skills. I have seen numerous discussion boards where the teacher does not structure conversation that requires back-and-forth dialogue among students. Feedback from the teacher is often lacking. In many classes, most students do not even participate, acting as "lurkers" who may or may not even be reading the postings. A common teacher response to lurking is to require a specified number of postings, which of course can easily degenerate into a game where students just go through the motions of conversing.

E-mail and threaded-topic message boards fail to compensate for the lack of personal interactions that typically occurs in a traditional classroom and campus setting. In general, Internet courses still emphasize a "delivery" mode of teaching (instructivism reigns supreme), as opposed to a "participatory" mode (Klemm, 1998b). In a participatory mode, students interact with each other to develop understanding and construct a communal base of information and understanding. Usually, this means that there must be a tangible result, a deliverable of some sort that the learning teams produce. In short, such learning is constructivist and collaborative. Nothing fundamental is likely to change if a traditional, teacher-centered teacher moves a course to the Internet. Indeed, the inadequacies of teacher centeredness are magnified in an on-line environment.

What Is Right About Shared-Document Conferencing

We are not talking here about e-mailing documents around to each member of a learning group for their input. As shown in Fig. 1, this is hardly convenient.

If multiple versions of the document have to be created, then the disadvantages are compounded. Moreover, this crude approach does not provide an environment for creating or re-structuring student groups, or for hyperlinking sets of shared documents.

Software: Microsoft Office

Figure 1.

The modern solution is to have documents on a file server that can be "checked out" to be worked on asynchronously by group members. This model is shown in Fig. 2.

Shared-document computer conferencing (SDCC) overcomes the limitations of bulletin boards. The basic advantage arises from allowing students to share documents completely; that is, they can not only read each otherís documents, but they can also edit each otherís documents. The documents can become community documents. Yet, by adjusting permission settings, some documents may be "read only." All editing is done with the same software editor in which the document was created and can include making deletions, additions, and in-context comments.

Software: Microsoft Office

Figure 2

A key feature is the existence of a full-featured word processor that supports multiple fonts, type sizes, tables, and graphics. Students can insert text, data tables, graphics, and sound or video clips into appropriate places in the shared documents. They can make links to Web pages and perhaps to other documents in the system.

SDCC systems move students away from the limited discourse available with bulletin board notes. Maintaining a working memory of the intellectual content is facilitated, because everything can be seen in one self-contained document. At worst, one only has to scroll up and down to see the various facts and ideas contained therein, which is far more convenient that having the same content put in separate e-mail messages that have to be opened and closed one at a time, obliging the reader to remember what information is in each posting.

Most importantly, responses to points made by others in the group can be done in context, in the form of pop-up notes for example that still let you see the original text of what is being responded to and the context in which that is embedded.

Such software provides shared workspaces for the insertion and iterative organization of information and insights, leading to evolving intellectual products that are continuously available for editing and annotation - in that same workspace - by all peers and instructors. The value of such software has been reviewed by Sherry et al. (2000) and many predecessors.

With a little imagination, teachers and students can use SDCC as a medium for MOOS, in which they create separate workspaces that metaphorically represent "rooms" that contain unique objects and activities.

Later in this chapter, I will give some examples of how I have used SDCC to enhance the effectiveness of my teaching.

Available Software

The kind of document sharing that I am talking about is found with several commercial software systems. Most of these have been designed for corporations and government. It is hard to find such products from Internet search engines, because they are called by different names: enterprise solutions, Web conferencing, meetingware, project ware, or peer-to-peer netware. Moreover, the names donít mean the same thing to everyone. Examples of systems that are potentially applicable to teaching include E-room (http://www.documentum.com/eroom/), Hummingbird (http://www.hummingbird.com/role/default/home.html), NextPage (http://www.nextpage.com/), and WebEx (http://www.webex.com/). However, these systems are expensive. WebEx, for example, costs $6,000 to set up and $100 per user per month. And some of these systems require extensive support infrastructure.

My colleagues and I at Texas A&M first attempted a simple, low-cost way to create a SDCC system, which we wanted to use in our teaching. Our original software (FORUM) allowed students to create community documents, provided all the in-context linking capability of Web pages, and did several things that Web pages cannot easily do: 1) accommodate independent teams of learners, 2) create workspaces for private individuals or groups, 3) provide variable levels of shared access permissions to any given document, and 4) support pop-up in-context sticky notes (writing in the margins). FORUM was limited in that it required client software installation that was cumbersome, and the documents were formatted in a non-standard word processor and not coded in html.

However, we have now have a SDCC system (called Forum MATRIX (www.foruminc.com) that has most of the software needed on a Web server. The only thing needed by users is a Web browser and Microsoft Word, both of which are already possessed by the vast majority of computer users.

Personal Interaction On-line: Conversation Theory

Why It Matters

Conversation is central to learning and to community building. In on-line environments, conversation is in writing. Written conversation engages students with content more rigorously than does speaking.

Teachers who truly believe that reading and writing are important to the educational process should surely embrace on-line conversation. I have even found that on-line conversation enriches traditional face-to-face teaching. Formal studies have shown that students who use the most primitive on-line communication mode, e-mail, produced more writing, developed a larger vocabulary, and attained a greater awareness of group process (Mehus, 1995).

On-line conversation yields an archive for reflection and later use in different contexts. Also, asynchronous conversations can be more comprehensive than face-to-face conversation, because it is not constrained by the serial turn taking where only one person can speak at a time. Instead, on-line conversations occur in parallel, and there is no limit on responding to multiple lines of thought. According to Knowlton et al. (2000), the advantages of properly administered on-line conversations are:

… Learners do not feel so isolated

… Learners can build relationships that help motivation

… Everyone has a chance to be "heard"

… Shared perspective and background knowledge make learning broader and deeper

… Ideas and facts can be pursued at deeper and more thoughtful levels

… Views and information are subject to re-examination and update

… When the conversations are asynchronous, as they often are in on-line instruction, several other advantages apply, compared to on-line chats

… Schedule conflicts are avoided and learning is more convenient

… More time becomes available for research and reflection

… Multiple patterns of discourse develop in parallel

… Data and commentary can be organized optimally, rather than "on the fly."

The communication between instructor and student and student-to-student communication serves many learning functions: rehearsal of factual information to expedite memorization, exposure to a broader range of information, deeper understanding that emerges from consideration of alternative points of view, stimulus for creative thought, and growth in information management and learning skills.

Why should teachers require a richer level of conversation from their students? John Chaffee, in his book The Thinkerís Way (1998),states it in a way that reminds us teachers of our obligations to students:

"We show the most respect for people by holding them to intellectual standards of rigor and honesty, informed by knowledge and reflection. And in doing so, we encourage them to make the effort to elevate their understanding, instead of being satisfied with superficial and misguided ways of thinking."

Building community through asynchronous on-line interaction requires us to think about how people should work together. Because of the asynchronous nature, we are constrained to written and graphic media. Our understanding of how to do written "conversation" should be informed by conversation theory.

In a distance learning environment, optimal learning depends on the way that instructors use conversation to mediate and enrich learning. Amazingly little analysis of conversation theory has occurred in the distance learning community, despite the fact that the on-line "discussion board" is widely accepted as an essential part of a distance learning experience. Herein we will consider conversation theory as it applies to enriching on-line conversation in distance learning.

Conversation Theory Overview

Patrick Jenlink and Alison Carr (1996) at Penn State University have summarized the essence of contemporary conversation theory in the context of education. They describe four types of conversation:

1. Discussion - exchange of opinion and supposition. Positions, sometimes rigid, are staked out.

2. Dialogue - a community-building form of shared viewpoints. Individual advocacy tends to be minimized to achieve group consensus.

3. Dialectic - conversation is aimed at distilling truth or correctness from logical argument. Focus on analytical thought and factual information.

4. Construction ("Design") - conversation aimed at creating something new, often in the form producing some kind of deliverable. The other three forms of conversation are used as tools to achieve a specified purpose.

Dialectic and construction forms require higher levels of thought and are therefore the most educationally valuable. Sherry et al. (2000) consider "discussion" to be degenerate.

Application to Asynchronous On-line Learning

Most distance learning courses have a "discussion board" component where students converse with each other by posting notes. But on-line discussions can be like a party that nobody comes to ... or a party where people are dressed wrong ... or a party where they bring the wrong kind of presents ... or a party where a drunk spoils it all with his boorish behavior.

On-line dialectic has not been widely used in distance education. Socrates, were he alive today, would certainly find a way to take advantage of the opportunities for reflection and research afforded by asynchronous telecommunication. Possible asynchronous solutions might begin with a professorís question, to which students independently post answers. To incorporate the construction conversational element, students could then debate and jointly edit all commentary to produce a group answer. The professor would then post a follow-up question and the process repeats. The professor can also "write in the margin" of the posts with in-context sticky notes or links to Web resources that students need to inspect.

A direct approach for using the construction type of conversation on line is to assign a group task, directing that all on-line commentary be geared toward producing the desired deliverable. Examples include problem-based learning, case studies, brainstorming and insight exercises, portfolios, and projects of various sorts.

Making Conversation Constructive

Teachers regard the teaching of critical thinking skills as among their highest calling. Yet, we seldom understand the role that conversational style plays in critical thinking. Chaffee (1988) points out that critical thinking in group settings occurs when each participant does all of the following:

… Expresses views clearly with supporting evidence and logic

… Listens carefully to others, weighing their evidence and logic

… Stays focused on the issues raised by others rather than on your own position

… Asks relevant questions and then tries to answer the questions

… Strives for increased understanding

Sadly, these conditions are seldom met in typical on-line discussions, where the typical requirement is to require each student to make a minimum number of postings in response to topic statements made by the teacher. Such discussions are conducted without an explicitly meaningful mission and group deliverable. How does that help the student to grow intellectually?

When on-line conversations are task-oriented, the learning becomes constructivist. An over-simplified definition of constructivism is that it is learning by doing. In application, this means that the conversation results in some kind of academic deliverable, commonly such as proposals, plans, designs, reports/papers, case studies, debates, ideas from brainstorming, decisions, portfolios, brochures, kiosks, hyperstories, or a variety of special projects.

Central to constructivist theory is the idea that learning involves active engagement of students in constructing their own knowledge and understanding. Constructivism is learner-centered, rather than teacher centered.

Constructivism has three components: epistemic conflict, self-reflection, and self-regulation (Forman and Pufall, 1988). Epistemic conflict occurs when a learner is presented with a problem that needs to be solved that is outside the learnerís current repertoire. Resolution requires the active engagement of the learner, and is enhanced by joint engagement with other learners. Self-reflection is the learnerís response to conflict. The learner must attempt to identify the problem explicitly and objectively. Self-regulation is the process whereby the learner adjusts and reconstructs thinking to deal with the learning problem at hand.

For example, in my neuroscience course, one of the students was a very bright electrical engineer with expertise in electronic neural networks. The issues that we raised in our class required him to re-think the information processing that occurs in electronic networks in the context of how nervous systems process information. He had to "reconstruct" his knowledge and experience, in the face of conflicting evidence about how computers work and how brains work. His adjustments to these conflicts were reflected in the shared documents that his group was constructing, not only enriching his own understanding of neural networks but also creating whole new dimensions of thought for the more biologically oriented students. His thinking became accessible to the other students in ways that would never occur in a typical lecture class.

Action Verbs That Make Good Conversation Happen

Another way to think about constructivist conversation is to specify certain action verbs that require the active construction of understanding, knowledge, and insight. Words that are particularly useful for on-line conversation include:

… Identify

… Compare and contrast\

… Explain

… Argue

… Decide

… Design

Identify

Students can develop their ability to observe and discern when they are required to identify relevant facts or issues. Examples: 1) Identify the root causes of the U.S. Civil War, 2) Identify the criteria by which we decide whether or not a given brain chemical is a neurotransmitter.

Compare and Contrast

This classical educational device requires students to recognize similarities and dissimilarities. It extends the "identify" requirement through further analysis. Examples: 1) Compare and contrast the way computers work and the way brains work. 2) Compare and contrast Netwonís view of gravity with that of Einstein.

Explain

Teachers have always known that the best way to understand something is to explain it to their students. Students likewise gain understanding from explaining complex ideas to fellow students. Examples: 1) Explain what a mathematical derivative is. 2) Explain why the Soviet Union collapsed.

Argue

John Chaffee contends that the central reasoning tool required to analyze complex issues is to construct and evaluate arguments. He does not mean to argue in the sense of quarreling. Rather, the central value of constructing arguments is the need for mustering evidence and logic that can stand scrutiny. Examples: 1) Why should we consider nitric oxide to be a neurotransmitter, even though it is a gas? 2) Why shouldnít the United States embrace European socialism?

Decide

What could be more important than the ability to make wise decisions? Making decisions often is the culmination of earlier steps of identify, compare and contrast, explain, and argue. Examples in academic curricula might include: 1) Determine the requirements for a cost-effective light rail system; 2) Decide which line of research in molecular genetics shows the greatest promise for immediate benefit. Do we have any systematic way to teach decision making to young people in most academic curricula? Group-based decision-making is common practice in the business world, and the processes are taught systematically in Business colleges. Why isnít group-based decision making an important skill to learn in other curricula? It IS important in the real world outside of school.

Design

Both creativity and critical thinking are stimulated when students are asked to design something. This tactic is standard fare in Engineering curricula. But the learning benefits could also be available in other disciplines. Examples include: 1) Develop a plan to test the hypothesis that .....; 2) design a Table of Contents for a book on ...........

Responding positively to such action verbs takes conversation to a new level far beyond the mere expression of opinion. This is especially true when the learning activities are conducted by groups of students operating under true team conditions.

Group (Team) Learning

Team learning in on-line computer conferences is widely practiced, and I am convinced that it is very effective (Kaye, 1991). When performance occurs in learner groups where the insights are shared, not only is learning elevated but students also learn to become more effective socially. Individual achievement in the real world typically depends on how well a person can work with other people. Some students are more effective group learners than others, and my experience has been that all students need improvement in this area. This is most conspicuous with students in competitive educational tracks, such as pre-professional (law, medicine) or graduate school. Such students became competitive for admission to selective professional or graduate schools because they compete (not cooperate) well. But in the real world of their professions, they will suddenly find a need to work collaboratively. Most young lawyers work for large law firms with a large stable of diverse clients. Physicians depend on a staff of bookkeepers, receptionists, technicians, nurses, and often other physicians in group practices. The "mad" scientist working alone in her ivory tower is a myth. Scientists typically work in teams, and they must always network with peers in their field to cultivate a reputation, get published in the best journals, secure prestigious positions and awards, and obtain grant funding. Complex communication skills are often more important for success in life than expertise or the traditional idea of intelligence (Goleman, 1995).

Advantages

Group learning is an important way to improve learning outcomes and to make learning more enjoyable. Humans are social animals, yet traditional classroom instruction often treats students in isolation. In response, educational reformers created a group- or team-learning model in which small groups of students were organized as social groups dedicated to helping each other learn the instructional material. This reform movement began in traditional classroom environments. Paradoxically, group learning has not captured the imagination of many distance educators, despite the fact that it is distance learners that need the social reinforcement and motivation more than classroom learners who do have social opportunities outside of class.

Group learning in traditional classrooms has its critics. Many teachers object to giving group grades, even though the teacher always makes the grading rules, which can include individual grading. Students commonly complain because the work is not evenly shared among group members. Underperforming students can cause superior students to get a lower grade than they think they deserve. Likewise, the contributions of superior students are not usually recognized. All these objections arise when faculty do not know how to conduct group learning properly. A proper group-learning environment stresses teamwork. The guidelines for creating a spirit of team cooperation and coordination are provided in the next section.

Why is team learning not more widely practiced in distance learning environments? No doubt, distance educators have the same bias against group learning as classroom educators. I know that some of this bias derives from a common belief that group learning is "kid’s stuff," appropriate only for elementary school. Too many professors apparently do not know how vital teamwork is in the world of business and government. If we are training professionals to have the appropriate academic background for careers in business or government, why are we not also training them to develop the social/political skills to apply the academic content in real-world environments?

Then, there are teachers who remember bad group-learning experiences that were improperly conducted by their own teachers who did not know how to conduct team-learning classes. Or, they hear "horror stories" from their students who groan in complaint at the prospect of having another bad group-learning experience. Paradoxically, many distance educators do not realize that technology overcomes the major obstacles to effective team learning in face-to-face classes.

What are these better ways for team learning that are provided by distance education technologies? Let me summarize:

… Every studentís work is seen by everyone else in the group and by the teacher. No student can hide or coast unnoticed on the work of others. Everyone can see who is doing good work and contributing to team success.

… Asynchronous collaboration makes it harder for overly assertive students to dominate the group activity, because on-line environments make it easy for each member to contribute without interruption or intimidation.

… Because all work is documented in electronic text and graphics, the group (and teacher) can readily monitor progress on assignments.

… Schedule conflicts create no problem. Each student can submit work and review the work of others at any time within designated deadlines.

These advantages are so apparent that I have used on-line asynchronous group learning as an adjunct to my face-to-face class (classes.cvm.tamu.edu/vaph451), which I have been doing successfully for about 10 years. Of course, I also use team learning in my Internet course (classes.cvm.tamu.edu/bims470).

Team learning can not only promote learning, but also build relationships that can last long beyond graduation. These relationships go beyond being merely social, because a group learning experience helps students to learn the talents and educational capabilities of group members in ways that are not possible in a traditional face-to-face class that does not employ team learning.

Collaboration Formalisms

The requirements for effective group learning have been formalized (Cooper et al. 1991; Goodsell et al. 1992; Kadell and Keehner, 1994), and many teachers recognize the enriched learning experiences provided by collaborative learning(CL). But formal CL is not generally practiced in on-line environments, although the idea is certainly not new (Kaye, 1991; Klemm, 1995).

Teamwork is a central element of this learning style. Effective CL requires that students be positively interdependent on one another (Johnson and Johnson, 1989). Assigning complementary roles to each team member helps assure that learning objectives are understood and appreciated by everyone. In on-line learning, collaboration provides social and intellectual support that would otherwise be available only in face-to-face classes. Distance learners must be disciplined and motivated in order to cope with the relatively impersonal instruction that occurs via distance technologies.

My University Teaching Experiences

With Shared-Document Conferencing

Because of the complexity and cost of existing SDCC systems, my colleagues and I at Texas A&M University have created collaboration software called Forum MATRIX, which is licensed for commercial distribution (www.foruminc.com). The name derives from the fact that the software enables a forum wherein documents, which reside on a central Web server, are organized by a matrix of links. The software runs in the standard Web browsers. The only client software needed is a browser (Netscape or IE ñ recent editions) and MS Word (2000 or XP), which most people already have or can get inexpensively.

A server-side MYSQL database contains information on who the students are, student log-in ID and password, whether there are groupings of students into autonomous learning teams, what activities and documents they have access to, what level of access they have (no access, read only, read-write), and identification of the documents and their hierarchical relationships. Permissions can be set by individual or by group, and permissions can be changed "on the fly," as for example when the teacher is ready for each group to see the work of other groups.

The interface appearing in the browser window simultaneously displays a navigation tree of the organization of documents and also a display of the Web page that corresponds to the selected item in the navigation tree. All documents are Web pages that already exist on the Web (the one illustrated is a default page (created in MATRIX) that appears before an item for viewing has been selected) (Figure 3).

Students not only can view the scrollable documents in their Web browser, but most importantly, they can check a document out for inserting text and graphics, editing, or for making links (to Web sites, MATRIX documents, or to pop-up notes). Documents are saved in MS Word and in html format. The documents are not only archived on the Web server, but when a student checks out a document, our Word macro allows the "Save As" function so that a document copy can be sent to a selectable folder on the hard drive or any portable media.

Figure 3. Home page of Forum MATRIX. The panel on the left contains a navigation bar. Clicking on a file name opens the file for viewing.

Multiple items from different students can be put into the same document. Students and teacher can scroll quickly through documents, recognizing quickly which inserts and pop-ups have special importance because of the context in which they occur. Unlike e-mail messages on discussion boards, the inserts can be seen in context - without any opening and closing of files. Pop-up notes, also in-context, open and close quicker than e-mail because they are stored as an integral part of the document, which has already been opened.

To work on a document, a student clicks on the document name in the navigation tree. The panel above the document as viewed in the right-hand frame of the Web page allows the user to check out the document for editing. When so instructed, the system delivers the document to the userís local PC and opens it as a local copy of MS Word. The MS Word has an embedded macro that makes the tool bars more convenient for inserts and also provides a mechanism for checking the document back in (Figure 4).

Figure 4. View of a document that has been checked out and automatically loaded into MS Word.

When the instructor or a student wishes to create a new workspace, similar steps are taken. Mouse clicking on "Add New Activity" or "Add New Article" in the navigation tree opens a dialog box that allows providing a name for the workspace and setting default access permissions.

The real power of this system is that documents can be fully shared. Teams of students can work together on the same copy of a document, adding inserts, deleting, making strikeouts, and inserting links. Such a document may be a case study analysis, a literature report, results of a project, or other kind of document deliverable. At some point in the drafting stage, the group can select an "editor" to convert the marked up copy into a new version, which can be copied in as a "new article." A succession of draft versions can be created in like manner.

My Uses of SDCC in University Teaching

Several kinds of activities have been field-tested with students for the 10 years that I have been using SDCC in my teaching at Texas A&M University. I summarize as follows:

Discussion Threads in Shared Documents

The idea of coalescing threaded discussions into common documents has been tested most often in my Biomedical Research course, taught entirely over the Internet. In this course, students are asked to post an insight on assigned reading material, which they submit in a shared document. Then they create hyperlinked annotations. This way all of the commentary associated with a given document or topic is embedded in the document itself, and the context for each note is readily apparent. Most importantly, participants in the conversation have the convenience of having everything in one scrollable place. Students in a learning team put their initials at the end of their text or use different font colors.

This way, all the conversation about a given topic appears in a single compact document. A typical topic contains the postings from six students and six pop-up notes for four readings. That is a total of 144 items. Imagine what that would look like on a bulletin board! It would take several screen displays just to list the topic titles for each of the 144 items (and each would have to be independently opened and closed to see the contents). But in our case, all of the actual commentary in an integrated single document of topic conversation often is no longer than several word-processor pages long. Can there be any doubt as to which approach is more convenient?

This exercise was not formal team learning and therefore lacked its camaraderie and pedagogical power, but I have never had problems with sabotage. These are serious college students, and they seem to want to benefit from the ideas and input of fellow students. Where team-learning formalisms are involved, the built-in interdependence, bonding, and group grading makes sabotage even less likely (see below). Also, in the small groups of 5 or 6 that I use, it should not be too hard to catch and punish any anti-social culprits who undermine the process. Note that each group is able to read (not edit) the works of other groups, which is easily done, because the commentary is organized within one scrollable document.

Note the example in Figure 5 below, in which students were asked to post an insight on the Controlled Substance Act that regulates narcotics and certain other restricted drugs. Unlike the threaded-topic design, all the comments are gathered (shown as brackets in hard copy; note pops up if viewed as a MS Word document) together in one html-formatted document. Students identify each other by their initials or they can choose different colored type in their word processor. The advantage of the interface is that a student can see everything in one place and does not have to go through all the mouse clicking needed to open and close a stack of discussion-board messages. A unique feature is the ability to create in-context links, just as in Web pages. These links may be to Web sites, to other MATRIX documents, or (unlike Web pages) to pop-up notes. This design encourages students to get more engaged in group work because the mechanics of the process are so easy. Note that the student comments (yellow highlight) do not print here, but are viewable in MS Word and in Forum MATRIX.

"The Controlled Substances Act of 1970"

I found this article, or piece of legislation, to be very long winded. However, it covers everything. Anything that could go wrong has a solution in this Act. The safety measures are more than adequate. I believe we definitely need legislation of this sort simply because the abuse of drugs in this country is out of control. TS

In working with controlled substances every day in the pharmacy I understand the rules and laws regarding them as far as how they are to be kept dispensed and delivered. When researchers use these substances they should follow the rules to the book in order not to incriminate themselves [W1] . Most importantly, a researcher should keep a log [W2] of the use of controlled substances in an experiment. SL

This shows the importance of the problems that can occur with the misuse [W3] of controlled substances. Such laws are necessary for the protection of the people. These laws are very important to the researcher, [W4] because a researcher often deals with controlled substances on a daily basis. BR

Researchers must often use controlled substances in their experiments. It is important for them to know and be able to trust their assistants [W5] who are dealing with the controlled substances. This article was interesting to me because I plan on going into pharmaceuticals. I got a lot if information about substances that only the pharmacist is allowed to handle. ~JL

This article is good to read to find out what type of things you can and can’t do with certain controlled substances in laboratories. Although most of it is written in legal jargon, it must be technically outlined "to the ‘t’", [W6] so there isn’t to be any misinterpretation of what the CSA says in terms of dealing with these controlled substances. JA

It is vitally important that controlled substances be monitored very closely. If they fell into the wrong hands it could cost many unknowing humans and animals their lives. Although the guidelines for the use and distribution of controlled substances may seem to some to be too strict it is all done to protect the best interests of both distributors and consumers. TD

I feel that it is highly necessary to have such detailed laws regarding narcotic use especially in light of the abuse of painkillers [W7] such as Oxycontin. Even if a drug is regarded as legal by the medical community, there is still a need for strict regulations. EL

Figure 5. Section of a thread-topic discussion that was contained in a single shared and scrollable document. Brackets serve as link anchors to pop-up in-context annotations from group members (in MS Word, the notes pop up automatically as the cursor moves over the text anchor ñ viewable in the CD version).

The repetition of cut-and-pasted context text is avoided. If these postings had been made as e-mail messages on an electronic discussion board, the insights and comments would have shown as 12 separate topic titles, and each would have to be opened separately and seen in isolation from the others.

Certain limitations exist in the software. Students have to identify who they are (as with initials, or they could use different colored font). Also, there are no "new" tags to show if a comment has been posted since any given user has last read the document, although it may be apparent that a given posting has link comments that were not there before.

These disadvantages are off-set by the time saved from seeing the context for a comment. Unlike a typical discussion board, the reader has a better way to know whether a comment is of interest before viewing it. And the viewing of it is easier, because the comment pops up and does not require opening and closing.

And, we have not mentioned the value for archiving. With shared-document mode, everything can be archived in one step. With most bulletin boards, each posting would have to be archived as a separate step.

Problem Solving

In my Biomedical Research course, some of the things that I have asynchronous student groups do on-line include solving statistics problems and reaching a group consensus on bioethics problems. The work is made much easier because they are helping each other to understand the problems and the approaches to solution.

Biographies

In the Biomedical Research course, I require each student to write a short biography on the discovery process used by a famous scientist (but not the ones that books have been written about). These biographies have pictures, and links to Web pages and even some of the publications of the scientists. The best part of this exercise is that everybody can see all the biographies. I could, if I wanted, set permissions so that students could insert in-context questions and commentary on the biographies. Students not only learn more about the discovery process, but most of the time they realize why some people received a better grade than others.

Web Quests

I have students conduct searches of Web pages covering certain topics. They put the hyperlink to the pages, along with a summary of what can be found at that Web site, all into one community document. Each topic can be covered in a separate document, or related topics may be combined into the same document. Because everything is html-formatted, it is easy to build a hyperlinked Table of Contents.

Case Studies

In my Introductory Neuroscience course, I want students to become comfortable and reasonably competent in reading primary research literature. Toward this end, I assign papers for the group to read and analyze in the Forum. However, I supply specific guidance by telling them what I want them to do in terms of understanding, assessing, and creating new ideas and perspectives. I supply the instructions in standard black font, and students insert their information and analysis under each question. Students usually approach this problem by assigning each team member to write certain responses, and then they interact to correct any misunderstandings or add multiple insights (Klemm, 2002).

In all of these teaching strategies, teacher feedback is easy and effective, because the teacher can "write in the margins" just as in the good old days of paper and pen. Extensive feedback can be supplied in-context as an insert (using a different font or color for emphasis), and short notes can be made in-context as pop-ups. By responding to a group rather than to each individual student, the teacher has less work and is more likely to be fully engaged in what the students are doing. When the same thing needs to be said to all groups, the teacher only inserts it once and then can refer other groups to that document.

Brainstorming/Decision Making

In my Introductory Neuroscience course, I emphasize the need to develop skill in developing insightful ideas that can be expressed as testable hypotheses. I require students to participate in "insight exercises" in which each student in a learning team asks a creative question about the subject matter (neuroscience) and then provides a rationale and strategy for answering it (Klemm, 1998b). The insights commonly take the form of a question, accompanied by an answer. Really good questions often do not have an answer, and in those cases, the task is to outline how to do experiments that could get to an answer. Each student in the group then makes in-context critique comments in a shared document, building up a basis for the group to select the "Best Question and Answer," which they then refine and submit as a group for a group grade. Each group has a group Leader (who assures that things get done on time and that everybody is pulling their share of the load), a Best Q&A Editor (who coordinates the debate and writes the revisions), and two or more Librarians, who do the library work to provide information. They develop a team spirit, actually wanting to compete with the other groups for the best grade. I have not been the only one to notice that given the proper on-line environment, students can develop camaraderie that enhances group productivity (Barab et al. 2001).

I find that a great advantage of this approach to group learning is the requirement of both an individual and a group product.

Workspace Interface for Digital Libraries

I currently am working with a team of computer scientists and veterinarians to create a digital library of exotic foreign animal diseases. Our Forum MATRIX is available as a group workspace for helping veterinarians and public health workers to diagnose outbreaks of foreign exotic diseases and develop response programs to contain the outbreak.

The library and Forum integrate smoothly, inasmuch as they are both Web-based systems. The library is designed to accept information about the conditions surrounding the outbreak and the symptoms and gross pathological signs seen in the first sick animals. Then the library automatically searches its database to generate a list of tentative diagnoses. Students can use the information in the digital library in Forum as they conduct their analysis of the situation.

Case Study Scenario

Shown below is the outline of a scenario by which public health officials, or students performing a case study, can use the SDCC system as an asynchronous workspace to use information in the digital library to diagnose the problem and develop a disease management plan.

1. Expert Summary. Each member of the group picks one or more of the tentative diagnoses. The student then posts a draft that explains which information about the diseaseís symptoms, circumstances surrounding the sickness, symptoms, and gross pathological signs provides a justification for considering this particular diagnosis. Other students make in-context comments and questions.

2. Information Needed. All students in the group post and debate suggested calls for information that are not in the database that would clarify the diagnosis. Examples: What lab tests are needed? What tissues should be cultured or examined histopathologically? Students debate the postings with in-context comments and questions.

3. Ranking and Debate. Each student ranks each tentative diagnosis on a scale of 0 to 10 (10 being most likely). Each student presents an argument for their top choice, which others critique with in-context comments and questions.

4. Final Choice. As a group, a final differential diagnosis is made, along with the rationale and defense for that choice.

5. Management and Containment plan. The group develops a comprehensive plan for containing and managing the disease.

Exemplary case studies can be put into the library, so that groups in the future can reference it.

Possible Problems in SDCC

Versioning

In the process of document evolution, students type in inserts, suggest deletions, and make debating points. When a document becomes extensively "marked up," it is necessary for the group leader or editor to take all these suggested changes into account and create a new version, which in turn may go through iterative rounds of successive versions.

Each version should probably be archived for later reference. A teacher, for example, may want to see how the final deliverable was created and who was making the important contributions. In Forum MATRIX, this is easily done by leaving each old version on the Web server, where it shows up on the navigation tree. A new version can be created as a blank document, into which the editor writes the new version de novo or inserts the full document of the latest old version (which MATRIX allows you to save to a local hard drive).

Sabotage

Clearly, a malicious student in a group could sabotage the group documents. By why would a student want to do that, assuming that the grade is group-assigned, which would penalize the perpetrator? Moreover, such a problem will not occur if the teacher has created the proper team-learning spirit.

Sabotage of the work of competing groups is a more likely possibility. I make certain that this never happens in two ways:

1. Students in a given group cannot see, much less edit, the work of other groups until after submission deadline is reached.

2. After the deadline, security settings on all documents from all groups are changed to "read only." This allows everyone to learn from the work of others, without getting to capture that work for their own group.

I have been teaching with SDCC for over 10 years. I have never encountered a case of sabotage. On the contrary, I have seen many inspiring examples of camaraderie and team spirit resulting in impressive academic deliverables. The bonding is so strong that students refuse to rank each other in terms of the each memberís contributions. I had wanted to give bonus points to outstanding members, but the students donít want anybody in their group to get more bonus points than others.

Telecommunication Practices in Partner Institutions

In the GUS context, a major problem will be the fact that various partner institutions use different course management systems (CMS) for their distance education courses. Popular CMS include WebCT, Blackboard, e-College. Each of these CMS provides a different way for students to interact with Web sites and to conduct discussions via e-mail and bulletin boards. Some universities use no formal management system and in addition may include differing add-on software for quizzes and assignments. This diversity can bewilder students who are new to Internet-based education. It is probably not a solution for GUS to host a CMS and a Forum Matrix SDCC, because each institution is typically wedded to its in-house software. Nonetheless, hopefully, institutions can be persuaded to make a SCDD system available for use by its instructors.

Instructors differ in the ways that they require students to use e-mail, mail-list distribution, discussion boards, and SDCC systems. However, the underlying nature of learning activities and assignments is usually standard, because they are borrowed from what is typically required in a traditional face-to-face class. Only the technology differs. That is not necessarily bad. The technology options make it possible to conduct certain learning activities much more systematically and effectively than is done in face-to-face work. This is especially true for group learning.

Message-based on-line conversation can overwhelm teachers with more e-mail than they have time or inclination to read. The solution is to structure conversations in ways that shift the burden of communication from to teacher to the students. That is, require the conversation to be contained within learning teams and focused on accomplishing an assigned task. Thus, the bulk of the conversation does not require teacher involvement, and when it does, the teacher can communicate with the group as a whole rather than with separate mail to each learner.

The important point from a teaching perspective is that asynchronous conferencing can be used to collect e-mail messages or it can be extended to support the creation of collaborative group products. To me, it makes more sense to use software that will allow a teacher to capitalize on the advantages afforded by collaborative learning formalisms (Klemm, 1995).

Conclusions

The typical threaded-topic discussion board in on-line learning wastes an opportunity for rich learning experience. This lost opportunity occurs for two main reasons: 1) teachers have not thought enough about conversation theory and how it can be used to enhance learning; and 2) discussion-board software typically does not allow document sharing and in-context annotation, both of which are needed to optimize on-line conversation.

On-line conversation is optimized when the following conditions are met:

… The conversation has a clear objective that requires some kind of group-written deliverable.

… The conversational requirement extends beyond mere expression of opinion to require students to identify, compare and contrast, explain, argue, and decide.

… Students work in teams, using collaborative learning formalisms, to help each other to produce the deliverable.

GUS partner universities should be encouraged to provide the enabling software.

References

Barab, S. A., Thomas, M., K., and Merrill, H. (2001). Online learning: from information dissemination to fostering collaboration. J. Interactive Learning Research. 12 (1), 105-143.

Chaffee, John. (1998). The Thinkerís Way. New York: Little, Brown, & Co.

Cooper, J., McKinney, M., and Robinson, P. (1991). Cooperative/collaborative learning: part II. J. Staff, Prog.Org. Dev., 9(4), 240-252

Forman, G. and Pufall, P. (1988) Constructivism in the Computer age: a reconstructive epilogue. In G. Forman and P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the Computer Age. (Pp. 235-250). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.

Goodsell, A., Maher, M., Tinto, V., Smith, B., and MacGregor, J. (Eds.). (1992). Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education. University Park, PA.: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

Jenlink, P., & Carr, A.A. (1996). Conversation as a medium for change in education. Educational Technology, 31-38.

Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.

Kadel, S., and Keehner, J. A. (Eds.). (1994). Collaborative Learning. A Sourcebook for Higher Education. (Vol. 2). University Park, Pa.: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment

Kaye, A. R. (1991). Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing. The Najaden Papers. Berlin: Springer Verlag

Klemm, W. R., and Snell, J. R. (1994). Teaching via networked PCs: Whatís the best medium? Technological Horizons in Education. 22 (3): 95-98.

Klemm, W. R. (1995). Computer conferencing as a cooperative learning environment. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching. 5 (3), 11-13.

Klemm, W. R. (1998a). Eight ways to get students more engaged in online conferences. The Higher Education Journal, vol. 26 (1), pp. 62-64.

Klemm, W. R. (1998b). Using computer conferencing in teaching. Community College Journal Klemm, W. R. (1998c). New ways to teach neuroscience: integrating two teaching styles with two instructional technologies. Medical Teacher, 20, 364-370.

Klemm, W. R. (2002). Analytical model for teaching students to analyze research reports in an asynchronous computer conference environment. J. College Science Teaching, vol.31 (5), pp. 298-302.

Knowlton, D. S., Knowlton, H. M., and Davis, C. (2000). The whys and hows of online discussion. Syllabus. June. P. 54-56.

Mehus, P. (1995). An inter-cultural approach to literature: e-mail in the literature classroom. Int. J. Educational Telecommunications. 1 (1): 85-92.

Sherry, L., Billig, S. H., and Tavalin, F. (2000). Good online conversation: building on research to inform practice. J. Interactive Learning Res. 11 (1): 85-127.

Author Biographical Sketch

W. R. (Bill) Klemm, D.V.M., Ph.D.

Professor of Neuroscience

Texas A&M University, Mail Stop 4458

College Station, TX 77843-4458, U.S.A.

E-mail: wklemm@cvm.tamu.edu

Webs: http://www.cvm.tamu.edu/wklemm/
http://www.foruminc.com

Bill Klemm's scientific interests include such areas as brainstem mechanisms of behavior, membrane and cell-level mechanisms of alcohol, learning/memory, chemical signals, human cognition, and EEG. See his list of about 400 publications (including 9 books and 45 book chapters. His work as an educator includes teaching upper-division undergraduate courses in Introductory Neuroscience and Science & Technology: Practices, Policies, and Politics. He has also created a web site "Publications on On-line Collaboration and Educational Technology" of his publications dealing with collaborative learning and distance education. He is co-developer of a Web-like computer conferencing and publishing system, called FORUM Matrix. This software design was awarded First Prize in an international contest for the "Best New Idea in Distance Education." He also co-developed the computerized self-quizzing game, called Get Smart! His honors include serving on the Board of Editors of seven scholarly journals: American Journal of Veterinary Research (1995-1999), Archives Clinical Neuropsychology (1992 to present); Communications in Behavioral Biology (now Behavioral & Neural Biology (1970-1973), Journal of Electrophysiological Techniques (1978-87), Progress in Neuropsychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry (1988 to present); Psychopharmacology (1980-1985), and The Technology Source (1998 to present). He has been selected as an ad hoc Reviewer for 34 scholarly journals, 8 book publishers, and several government agencies (NSF, NIH, USDA). He is listed in some 17 Biographies and has Distinguished Researcher awards from the Texas A&M Former Students Association and Sigma Xi, Texas A&M. He served on the international Board of Directors of the 70,000-member Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. A more complete resume is available here.