COMMUNICATION INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK
Irene Wong-Bushby Math and Computer Science Allentown College- St. Francis de Sales
2755 Station Ave. Center Valley, PA 18034
ABSTRACT
This paper builds on the application of Business Process Redesign (BPR) as an approach to re-engineer traditional education methods for use in Distance Education proposed by Mandviwalla and Hovav (1998). Learning processes are modeled using an Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) methodology. The OOP methods represent communication channels between the instructor, student and course materials in a same time, same place model. This paper then develops a three-level Computer Mediated Communication tools taxonomy by applying the three-tier foundation in Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) by DeSanctis and Gallupe (1985). The paper finally integrates the OOP learning process model and the CMC tools taxonomy to construct a Distance Education/Computer Mediated Communication (D.Ed./CMC) Integrated Framework.
1. INTRODUCTION
The need to develop a framework on how to deploy Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) systems in Distance Education (D.Ed.) has been a growing concern. Data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics in 1997 indicated a third of higher education institutions offered D.Ed., and another quarter planning to offer such courses in the next 3 years. Faculty members are bracing the D.Ed. trend in the face of uncertainty; both pedagogically, and technologically. This paper offers a generic framework that guides the deployment of CMC systems in D.Ed. which can co-exist with new trends in D. Ed. pedagogy and CMC systems. It can provide faculty members with a relatively stable transition instrument from traditional education (same place) to D.Ed (any place); and serve as a framework for evaluating D.Ed. software.
The paper builds on the application of Business Process Redesign (BPR) as an approach to re-engineer traditional education methods for use in Distance Education (Mandviwalla and Hovav 1998). Learning processes are modeled using an Object-Oriented Programming (OOP)
methodology. This results in the identification of objects and their methods in learning processes. The OOP methods represent communication channels between the instructor, student and course materials in a same time, same place model. This paper then develops a three-level Computer Mediated Communication tools taxonomy by applying the three-tier foundation of Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) by DeSanctis and Gallupe (1985). The paper finally integrates the OOP learning process model and CMC tools taxonomy to construct a Distance Education/Computer Mediated Communication (D.Ed./CMC) Integrated Framework. This model proposes appropriate CMC system interfaces that replace traditional (same place) communication channels between the instructor, student and course materials. As a result of this replacement, communication occurs over a computer system and education is delivered at a distance (any place) . The CMC taxonomy was validated against three D.Ed. systems. The D.Ed./CMC model was validated by interviewing D.Ed. faculty members. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research.
2. DISTANCE EDUCATION AS BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN
Mandviwalla and Hovav views learning as a set of processes (similar to system processes). They suggest that BPR offers a methodology to examine processes, and redesign the processes by deploying system solutions to improve process output. They also identify that a subset of learning processes has the generic form of communication between society and the individual. This is fertile arena for the application of CMC software for two reasons. CMC can be used to: a) modulate the communication channel from same place (traditional education) to any place (distance education), and b) optimize communication throughput by leveraging CMC software features to provide new paradigms for student/ instructor/ course materials communication.
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The D.Ed./CMC Integrated Framework has two components: the education processes which are to be re-engineered; and the CMC features to be deployed. A discussion of the theoretical framework underlying each component follows. These two components are then integrated to produce the final model.
3.1 Learning Process Model
Education processes encompass the full range of processes between the student, instructor/tutor and administration. This paper is interested in a subset of these processes namely
learning processes. Learning processes entail the communication between the student and
instructor. Figure 1 describes a simulation model of the learning processes in the traditional classroom using an Object Oriented Data Model (McFadden and Hoffer 1994). The model is obtained by observing the objects found in a classroom. These include the three object classes in Moore’s (1989) model (namely the instructor, student and course materials) and five additional object classes: the discussion group (which is a container class of student and
instructor classes), the instructor’s desktop, the student’s desktop, student materials (e.g. assignments, tests), and teaching aids (which is an ancestor class of blackboard, and other teaching aids). These objects are categorized as either users (instructor, student, group) or data
stores (all other object classes). The communication method between two adjoining object
classes are used to label the connections between object classes. For example, the primary method used to communicate between the instructor and course materials object classes is “prepare (notes)”. By doing so, the model emphasizes the methods of communication between the student, instructor, course materials, and student assignments. Later on, by mapping appropriate system feature(s) from the CMC tool taxonomy (refer to next section) to replace a traditional method of communication, we obtain the D.Ed./CMC integrated framework which guides the deployment of CMC software for distance education.
3.1.1 Distance Education Pedagogy
In examining education processes for re-engineering, it is necessary to safeguard the integrity of the principles of distance education pedagogy. This paper adopts McIsaac and Gunawardena’s paper as baseline literature on this subject. The paper reports the following points that are noteworthy.
Distance education is defined as structured learning in which the student and instructor are separated by time and place.
Keegan (1986) identifies six key elements of distance education including use of media to link teacher and learner, and two way exchange of communication.
Wedemeyer (1981) identifies essential elements of independence and autonomy as great student responsibilities, effective mix of media and methods, a wide variety of start, stop, and learn times as key elements in distance learning.
In a nutshell, distance education pedagogy says: “student-centered” learning is key; instructors are facilitators; learning occurs any time and anywhere; and computer mediated communications links the teacher and learner in a two way interchange.
This paper adopts the viewpoint that D.Ed. pedagogy necessitates a shift by an instructor from exposition (or lecture) to hypothetical (or facilitator) style method of teaching. This shift in teaching style is performed independently before the D.Ed./CMC Integrated Framework is applied. Therefore the D.Ed./CMC Integrated Framework will preserve the D.Ed. pedagogy provided the teaching method was designed following those principles.
3.2 CMC Tools Taxonomy
Table 1 contains a tabulation of CMC software features listing called CMC tools taxonomy. The purpose of the taxonomy is to provide an array of CMC features useful in a variety of D.Ed. delivery methods. That is, the CMC tools taxonomy is a D.Ed. system shell. The features also represent generic functions and are not differentiated based on technology (e.g. Web-based). This is an important aspect of the taxonomy. The software features are
taxonomized into three-tiers: level 1 represents features aimed at communications, level 2 represents productivity tools supporting online course materials and student materials (i.e. a shared workspace), and level 3 represents CMC tools that induce new group behaviors as a result of computer mediation. This three-tier categorization is patterned after DeSanctis and Gallupe’s framework for group decision support systems. By utilizing this taxonomy, it is easy to select the basic (levels 1 and 2) CMC tools to guide the general direction of CMC deployment. Once this is done, through a process of continuous process improvement, additional enhancement features from level 3 may be added to optimize the CMC software throughput.
4. D.ED./CMC INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK
In constructing the D.Ed./CMC Integrated Model, CMC tools were mapped into the Traditional Classroom Learning Process Model (Fig. 1). The construction process occurred in three stages.
First, each object is represented by an information repository. There are two kinds of information repositories: users (instructor, student, group) are represented by message
repositories (i.e. mailboxes or bulletin boards); and all other objects (course materials, student
assignments, instructor/student desktops, teaching aids) are represented by document/message
repositories.
Next, each method of communication is mapped to a (or a set of) CMC tool(s). That is, the traditional communication channel (i.e. same place) is modulated over distance (i.e. any place) using a specific set of CMC tools. In this way, the classroom learning process is operating at a disance providing for a separation of the instructor and student.
The third stage of the construction process takes into consideration three basic temporal modes of instruction in distance education: any time (Fig. 2), same time (Fig. 3a, b), and combination mode (any time and same time) (Fig. 4). Consequently, the D.Ed./CMC Integrated Framework is a set of three frameworks. Each framework represents a mode of instruction for clarity and ease of deployment. The frameworks are discussed below.
4.1 D.Ed./CMC Integrated Framework- Asynchronous mode (any time, any place) (Figure 2)
The asynchronous mode (Figure 2) of distance education is currently the predominant mode of instruction in distance education. It specifies the CMC tools used for the distribution of course materials (syllabus, text materials, reference materials, assignments, and tests), and the collection of student materials (assignments and tests). It also specifies the CMC tools for asynchronous student conferencing, and group discussions. The CMC tools are indicated in italics, and the thick hash mark indicates the method of communication that has been modulated using this CMC tool. The CMC tool can be cross-referenced to the CMC tool taxonomy (Table 1) for a detailed description.
A sample asynchronous scenario follows to illustrate how Figure 2 can be applied. Italics represent the framework and may be used to follow Figure 2. An instructor prepares the syllabus using Office 97 (a toolbox), and saves it under a shared course materials document
repository. The student gets it using Netscape Communicator (a browser). The instructor
then lectures by posting discussion questions on a bulletin board (electronic mail-bbd), and directs the group (or class) to participate in the discussion using the bulletin board (electronic
mail-bbd).
4.2 D.Ed./CMC Integrated Framework- Synchronous mode (same time, any place) (Figures 3a and b)
The synchronous mode of distance education encompasses primarily one, one-many, and many-many real time two-way discussions. Due to limitations in bandwidth, this has been widely deployed as text-based conferencing, i.e. chat rooms. When a teaching aid is needed, specialized applications such as shared whiteboard and the like have been used. Figure 3.a illustrates the CMC tools for synchronous mode of instruction using a single channel.
A sample scenario follows to illustrate the application of Figure 3a. The instructor
lectures to the group (or class) using a hosted NetMeeting chat room (1-m text-based
conferencing). The students then holds private discussion in pairs using private chat (1-1 text
based conferencing) to discuss the topic further. Finally, the students return to (participates
in a whole group discussion) the hosted NetMeeting chat room (m-m text-based conferencing) to report their findings.
Single channel synchronouse mode can be rather limiting. For example, using shared whiteboard, it is difficult to communicate without using a chat room (a second communication channel) concurrently. Therefore, Figure 3.b illustrates the use of multiple channels (McCarthy and Monk 1994) of communication to augment the primary communication channel.
For example, the instructor uses NetMeeting to broadcast (lectures) an Excel table (shared desktop) to illustrate an economics model. At the same time, the instructor uses (lectures) another channel - RealAudio (1-m audio) - to talk to the class (group).
4.3 D.Ed./CMC Integrated Framework- Combination mode (Figure 4)
One final consideration of the D.Ed./CMC Integrated Framework is to view synchronous mode as not just merely units of synchronous instruction, but rather as a meta-unit of instruction which can consist of segments of asynchronous and synchronous instruction applied in sequence. This provides the instructor with a variety of methods and engages the students more. Figure 4 illustrates a sample sequence. The instructor begins the online class using a PowerPoint slideset displayed through the shared application feature of NetMeeting (A synchronous unit using shared desktop.). After this, he/she directs the students to analyze the material by constructing a model using Excel (An asynchronous unit using documents database
modifier.). Finally, the students post their findings to a threaded discussion on a bulletin board
(An asynchronous unit using electronic messaging). This is an example of a meta-unit: it combines synchronous and asynchronous tools in sequence for synchronous instruction. During
synchronous combination mode, it is important for the instructor to provide continuity while the students work independently by using multiple channels of communication (refer to Fig. 3b).
5 CONTINUOUS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
Once a basic set of CMC tools has been selected from the D.Ed./CMC Integrated Frameworks, the use of CMC tools should be continuously refined over time to maximize the quality and quantity of communication between the instructor, student and course materials. This is known as continuous process inprovement in BPR. Several CMC tools from the taxonomy deserve a closer look in this regard.
session logging- chat sessions should be saved for review by the instructor at a later time. This implements a CMC induced new group behavior paradigm known as parallel input. search engine (specialized document database browser)- Search engines should be used
extensively to access knowledge within the virtual learning community such as digital libraries, or listservs.
floor control- protocols to yield the floor to a student in a virtual classroom while the instructor still maintains control of the class needs to be implemented in distance education (Ellis 1997).
communication feedback- communication feedback (e.g. voting, polling, surveys) should used to establish grounding (Clark and Brennan). This is essential to compensate for the lack of nonverbal cues or telepresence (Greenburg) in CMC.
content mapping- graphical (or visual) concept maps (Ryder and Grave) should be used to assist students with critical thinking tasks. Sketch view in COWS (Mandviwalla and Khan) is an example of a graphical organizer.
group awareness- social (or group) awareness has to be deliberately cultivated in distance education to compensate for the lack of telepresence. Virtual team rooms (TeamWave), and MUVE (Neal 1997) are examples of CMC tools towards this end.
6 VALIDATION METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
The purpose of the validation is to ensure that the models reflect real world practices in the deployment of CMC tools. The D.Ed./CMC Integrated Framework was validated by interviewing three distance education faculty members and the use of a survey instrument. The faculty members were interviewed twice. During the first interview, faculty members demonstrated the use of a CMC system of their choice to accomplish the learning processes. As a result, a customized CMC tool taxonomy was compiled to cross-reference the CMC tools taxonomy terminology to the CMC system features that the faculty was using. At a second interview, the faculty member was asked to validate the customized CMC taxonomy and to discuss general distance education issues. At the end of the second interview, a copy of the customized CMC tool taxonomy, the D.Ed./CMC Integrated Frameworks and the survey instrument were given to the faculty members.
The survey results indicate that the faculty members agree that the frameworks represent how they have applied CMC tools for the purpose of distance education. Stated another way, the frameworks do reflect real world practices in the deployment of CMC tools. Thus the framework was validated.
7. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The main contribution of this paper is in showing how CMC tools can be deployed to transform traditional education methods into distance education methods. This was done by formulating an OOP Traditional Learning Process OODM and a CMC tools taxonomy that were integrated to produce a set of three D.Ed./CMC Integrated Frameworks.
For future research, CMC features that promote student participation during synchronous sessions should be investigated. One possibility is to offer built-in CMC features for student evaluation. This can be done by utilizing system statistics such as document database access, message database access, chat room participation etc. by student ID for class participation evaluation. There are strong indications that computer assessments are well-accepted by students and may be used to diffuse student hostility. Therefore, CMC evaluation has the strong potential of promoting a new paradigm in instructor/student evaluative feedback in addition to automating instructor efforts in providing student evaluations.
8. FINAL COMMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge the following distance education faculty members at Allentown College-St. Francis de Sales who shared their invaluable insights with me and provided feedback regarding the framework : H. Hojjat, J.Lewis, and S. McGorry . I also wish to acknowledge M. Mandviwalla at Temple University who was my advisor and provided overall guidance for this paper.
Figure 3.a D.Ed./CMC Integrated Framework – Synchronous model + Single channel
Figure 3.b D.Ed./CMC Integrated Framework – Synchronous mode + Multiple channels Single Channel Multiple Channel
Exposition shared whiteboard shared whiteboard/ shared style (lecture) shared desktop desktop/collaborative browser
collaborative browser + chat [+ audio [+ video ] ]
Hypothetica chat chat
l styel
(discussion) audio [+ audio
video [+ video ] ] MUVE
Figure 4 D.Ed./CMC Integrated Framework – Synchronous combination mode Asynchronous individual work to report back
tools analyze results using results using electronic file transfer electronic messaging documents db modif. documents db browser documents db electronic modifier messaging to a bulletin board
Synchronous group summarize
tools lecture lesson using
shared whiteboard shared desktop content map collaborative db. bwr. collaborative db.modif. text chat audio video MUVE
using text chat
shared desktop PowerPoin t slides + audio
Table 1 CMC tools taxonomy
CMC feature Description Useful for
Level 1 CMC Communication Tools
async
electronic file provides for electronic file transfer distributing syllabus/ text transfer between workspaces; these materials/ reference (attached file, files can be either graphics, materials/ assignmemts/ electronic provides for electronic mail secured conferencing between messaging (e- the instructor and student mail) one-to-one discussions between
students
one-to-one discussion with subject matter expert electronic bulletin board format
group discussions MUVE provides for multiple user virtual class parties and other social (MUD, environment with the use of events
MOOS) avatars. sync
text provides for chat room type secured conferencing between conferencing conferencing; may be the instructor and student (chat rooms) threaded. unmoderated discussion groups
moderated discussion groups such as peer tutoring expert speaker hosted
discussion groups audio provides for voice conferencing; providing another
conferencing one-way, multipoint audio communication channel so conferencing is feasible at this it is possible to talk at the point. same time
video provides for video conferencing; providing yet another
conferencing one-way multipoint video communication channel so conferencing is feasible at this it is possible to see the point. instructor at the same time
Level 2 CMC Productivity Tools to support a shared workspace
documents provides for a database syllabus, text materials, reference database management system to store materials, assignments,
folders and files with various tests access levels; includes
shared, restricted, private access controls on the folders and documents.
student folders for returning graded assignments, or providing evaluative feedback
instructor desktop (lecture notes, teaching aids, etc.)
student desktop (class notes, learning aids, etc.) electronic provides for a electronic message obtaining feedback on reading message database system to organize assignments
database messages by special topics; (AKA bulletin includes threaded/ non-board) threaded bulletin boards.
electronic message database modific. and browser is considered electronic messaging within layer 1.
promoting discussion and synthesis of course materials.
CMC feature Description Useful for document provides tools to create/ for the instructor- creating database manipulate documents in the syllabus, ref. materials, modification document database assignments, tests
(AKA toolbox) for the student- writing projects/ assignments, modeling and analysis
creating presentations document provides for read-only access to reading the syllabus, text database documents in the document materials, reference browser (AKA database. materials, assignments,
browser) tests
sync
collaborative provides for group authoring providing markup comments on a document activities within a rich student’s paper
databse editor setting. modification
(AKA collaborative tbx)
providing team feedback in the form of annotations/notes directly within a document
collaborative provides for read-only access to synchronizing group behavior document documents; the browser while browsing a multi-page database has “group awareness” document
browser (AKA features. collaborative
browser)
collaborative in addition to providing a saving multiple versions of a document repository with various collaborative document database access levels, collaborative
repository provides for version control and update notification.
C notifying collaborators when a change has been made to a document
content mapping provides for a visual group activities that involve representation of structured organizing and synthesizing content; constructs a facts/ data into a
graphical tree framework.
shared provides for an electronic situations where a blackboard whiteboard blackboard that can be would be useful; supports
shared with others text and graphics.
shared desktop provides for a mechanism to show and tell instruction methods broadcast a PC’s desktop;
similar to using Lanschool student project demonstrations Level 3 CMC tools to induce new group behaviors sync
session logging provides for a record of activities providing a transcript of break during a work group out discussion groups for floor control provides for floor access control; limiting the number of threads
for example participants during a chat session are blocked from chatting
until the instructor grants access to the floor
retain control of the chat room even as students gain access to the floor
communication provides for facilities to actively question and answer to obtain feedback engage the participants feedback on whether the
either by voting, polling, or material has been surveying; usually understood summarizes the results in a
graphical format monitoring the level of attention ofparticipants by asking for periodic acknowledgement
group electronic team rooms simulating a virtual classroom awareness provides for a team room environment where a sense
where shared objects
(folders, URLs, audio simulating a virtual class room clip, whiteboard, etc.) environment so class can be organized handouts, whiteboard etc. spatially. remain for absentees
group awareness
REFERENCES
Campbell, J.O. (1998) Asynchronous Learning Networks: Evaluating Anytime/Anywhere
Learning. DELTAC. www.detec.com/solutions/naweb97.htm
Clark, H. H., and Brennan S.E., Grounding in Communication. In Resnick, L., Levine, J., and Teasley, S.D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, American Psychological Association, Washington.
Coad, P., and Yourdon, E. (1990). Object-Oriented Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Yourdon Press; Prentice Hall.
DeSanctis, G., and Gallupe, A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support
Systems. R.B. (1987) Management Science, Vol. 33 No. 5 May 1987.
Distance Education in Higher Education Institutions (1997). National Center for Education Statistics, Statistical Analysis Report, Oct. 1997.
Ellis, B., Virtual Classroom Technologies for Distance Education: The Case of Onpline
Synchronous Delivery, www.detec.com/solutions/naweb97.htm.
Greenberg, S., Real Time Distributed Collaboration, In Dasgupta, P., and Urban, J.E. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Distributed Computing, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Keegan, D. (1986). The foundations of distance education (Second edition). London: Routledge.
Mandviwalla, M. What Do Groups Need? A Proposed Set of Generic Groupware
Requirements. ww2.cis.temple.edu/ cis744/docs/grp_req8htm
Mandviwalla, M., and Hovav, A. Adapting business process redesign concepts to learning processes.
Mandviwalla, M., and Khan, S., Icollaborative Object Workspaces (COWS): Exploring the integration of collaboration technology, ww2.cis.temple.edu/cis744/docs/cowwitf.htm. McCarthy, J. C., and Monk A.F., Channels, conversatin, cooperation and relevance: all
you wanted to know about communication but were afraid to ask. Collaborative
McFadden, F.R., and Hoffer, J.A. (1994). Modern Database Management, Fourth Ed. Ch. 5. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Inc.
McIlrath, D.A., and Huitt, W.G., The Teaching-Learning Process: A Discussion of
Models,www.valdosta.edu/~whuitt/psy702/files/modeltch.html
McIsaac, M. S., and Gunawardena, C. N. (1996) Distance Education. In D.H. Jonassen, ed. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology: a project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. 403-437. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Moore, M.G. 1989. Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3 (2), pg. 1-6.
Neal, L., Virtual Classrooms and Communities, ACM Group ’97 Conference, Nov. 1997. Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., Briggs, R.O., Mittleman, D. D. Electronic Meeting Systems: Ten Years
of Lessons Learned. Ventana Corporation. Center for the Management of Information,
University of Arizsona.
Ryder, R. J., and Graves, M.F., Using the Internet to enhance students’ reading, writing,
and information-gathering skills, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 1997.
TeamWave Software Ltd., Collaborative Education with TeamWave Workplace, www.teamwave.com.
Tucker, R. (1998) Teaching Teachers to Teach On-line. ACM.
Wade, V.P. (1998). Evaluating the Design and Delivery of WWW Based Educational
Environments and courseware. ACM.
Wedemeyer, C. (1981). Learning at the back door: Theoretical constructs affecting
teaching and learning. In Forum For the Teaching of Distance Education, Norman, OK:
