by
Lynn Davie
Hema Abeygunawardena
Kathryn Davidson
Jason Nolan
The Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education at the University of Toronto
This paper reports on our experiences this past year in working with three different online conferencing systems. Each of the online systems was designed and built using a different metaphor. We asked a graduate class in educational computer applications to use each of the systems for a number of weeks to see if there were differences in the systems' support for intellectual work, how the students felt about using the systems, and if we could determine any differences in the outcomes.
Our reflection is not, however, an evaluation of the three different systems. We sought to explore what each system might do best, and to try to see if the underlying design metaphor seemed to make any difference. Our selection of the original systems: (a) Virtual University, (2) WebCSILE, and (3) MOOkti was based on two criteria. First, all three systems were being used in one or more OISE/UT courses and so it made sense to introduce all three systems in the introductory course. Second, the combination of the systems allowed for both asynchronous and synchronous conferencing.
We begin the paper by describing the setting for the experience, the three systems we introduced to the class, and the limitations to our use of the systems. We end with our learning from the experience.
Our experiences centre around our facilitating two graduate level education courses over the past year (1997-1998). One course was an Introduction to Computer Applications in Education and the second was Computer Mediated Distance Education. The introductory course attracts students with a wide range of backgrounds in both the study of education and specifically in the study of computers in education. The goals for this course are to introduce a wide variety of current developments in educational computing as well as to develop a number of skills related directly to the use of online systems for educational purposes. The second course focused on the design of computer mediated distance education courses. This course brought together theories of learning and adult development with design theories and skills. Many of the students in the first course went on to the second course.
The authors worked together as a team to support the courses. Lynn was the instructor for the course; Hema and Kathryn were graduate assistants; and Jason was instrumental in developing educational applications using MOOkti. In the graduate context these were large courses with 28 students in one and 20 students in the second course. Lynn has been using computer conferencing software in courses for 12 years, while Jason has had experience with computer programs for more than 10 years. Hema and Kathryn have been studying computer mediated communication for a number of years. The team was able to provide peer support for each other and to the students. Hema facilitated the conferences in WebCSILE, Katherine facillitated the conferences in Virtual University, and Lynn and Jason facilitated the sessions in the MOO.
Each year OISE/UT offers more than 20 distance education courses using computer conferencing as well as another 10 or so on-campus courses which also use computer conferencing as a part of the course. At the moment, there are a half a dozen different systems available for the conferencing components of these courses: email-based discussion lists using Majordomo software; Participate, a text based conferencing system; Virtual University, a web based system created at Simon Fraser University; and Knowledge Forum, a web based, database system developed at OISE/UT. At the time we used the system Knowledge Forum was known as WebCSILE. In addition, some courses have used First Class, a commercial product with its own client. Finally, we have been experimenting with the use of an educational MOO, a system that allows for both synchronous and asynchronous conferencing as well as other interesting features.
We chose three of the systems for use in our courses this year. First, we chose Virtual University because it has been used for a large number of our online courses in the past two years. Our second choice was CSILE (Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment). This program had become available through a web interface this year making it available to systems other than the Macintosh for the first time. As a consequence of the availability of the web based version, most of OISE's distance courses are moving to WebCSILE (now known as Knowledge Forum). Finally, we wanted a system that would permit students and faculty to communicate in real time. While there are other programs with chat lines available, we felt that a text based virtual reality program that was user extensible such as MOOkti would serve our educational needs best.
One of the difficulties in looking at different systems and discussing their features is that all three of the systems are developing quite rapidly. We think it makes sense to report our learnings about our use of the three systems, but we will not talk to any extent about specific features, as these features are changing quite rapidly. To say that one system does not have such and such a feature is to attract the comment "We added it yesterday."
Finally, before we move on to a discussion of the three systems, we should take a look at the goals of the courses themselves. First, the instructor believes in active, constructivist learning. The courses were structured as a series of topics and tasks with the intent of interesting students to study further in some areas and to help develop usable skills in the online environment. Students were encouraged to work with each other on collaborative assignments. Advanced students could gain course credit by mentoring less advanced students. The main goal was not only to learn about computers, but to be able to do educationally useful things with computers. We describe how these systems worked in real learning environments.
Virtual University (http://virtual-u.cs.sfu.ca/vuweb/) is a large scale asynchronous conferencing system developed at Simon Fraser University and is delivered via the World Wide Web. It offers support to instructors for organization and distribution of course materials and for keeping students updated on their progress. Students enter the conferences through an initial screen displaying a visual image of the Virtual University campus, each building representing a virtual space where students might find discussion groups/conferences or tools to make good use of the system. This conferencing system consists of closed databases, and participants need to have user names and passwords assigned by the database administrator. There is, for instance, a Virtual Cafe which serves as a meeting place for informal discussion and a Virtual Library which houses links to external resources such as research links on the Internet. The Virtual Groups building houses available conferences. Help (including frequently asked questions) and information on V-U is also available by clicking on small icons at the top of the screen. When students arrive at their chosen conference messages are displayed by title, all titles being hyperlinks to the notes themselves. There are also drop down menus in the top frame containing the available options available, such as reading messages, composing replies, or moving to other conferences. Participants may write messages in a plain text or HTML format. The html option enables participants to include links to Internet sites, display images or format their messages (fonts, colors/bulleted lists/ etc) using conventional html tags.
By manipulating the options from the drop down menus, students can tailor how they wish to display the conference. For example, students may elect to sort messages by thread, by date or by author and combine this sorting option to see all messages or only messages not yet read. Students are able to create their own sub-conferences as well. When viewing notes, there is also a full message view feature that allows students to load all notes at once, thus eliminating the need to jump back and forth between each message and the title screen. There is downloading time associated with each method of viewing messages and with moving between screens as the system is web-based. Students also need to remember where to find each option or be willing to experiment with the drop down menus until they find what they are looking for as the option are not visible until they press on the appropriate menu. Instructors also need to consider when to initiate new topics/conferences as the message list and associated downloading time grows.
All of Virtual University is in English, except for the grade book which has an option for either English or French.
The basic metaphor for Virtual University is a university campus seen from an administrator's perspective. The main screen shows a variety of campus buildings which can be used as a navigational system to move around the conceptual spaces of the system. The course dialogue is conducted in conferences and subconferences. Each course is allocated a main course conference and the instructor can create subconferences as he or she needs for the course design. In addition to the conferencing facility, there are links to library sources, and a substantial support for the instructor to use to develop the online course. There are templates for creating a course calendar with linked topics, resources and assignments. There is also an interactive grade book in which the student may see not only there own grade, but see where it falls in the overall distribution of course grades.
Virtual University consists of a server, a database and client programs. The program can be mounted on any UNIX server. Using a web interface the client program can be any web browser which has a frames capability (ie. Netscape 2.x or Microsoft Internet Explorer 2.x)
The main strength of Virtual University is its support for the organization of online courses. Its templates helps new instructors put together fairly sophisticated sets of course readings and resources without having to know html.
A second important strength is the option of only displaying unread notes. By setting this option, the number of notes in a list is controlled which speeds up the time necessary to fetch the page from the server.
More information about Virtual University is available http://virtual-u.cs.sfu.ca/vuweb/ at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
Knowledge Forum (http://csile.oise.utoronto.ca) is a second generation CSILE (Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments) product designed to promote online communication for collaborative knowledge building which can be accessed using any web browser. The basic metaphor is that of a knowledge building community based on how a scientific community is thought to function. It was named WebCSILE at the beginning and was changed to Knowledge Forum [KF] recently. As this conferencing system consists of closed databases, the participants need to have user names and passwords assigned by the instructor of the course. In addition, only the instructor can initiate new discussion[s] by creating new views. Each view can be considered as a new or sub-topic or as a main theme or a sub theme in the conference.
The students gain access to the communal database using their given login data. The main screen consists of the Views created by the instructor, with navigation features listed in a table on the left side. New notes are marked by a different colour icon and a "New" flag is inserted next to the view which contains it. At the beginning, the instructor would initiate views such as Welcome, Class Agenda, Introductions, A warm cosy kitchen [name selected for the social space], Questions about assignments, Want ADs to convey the goals and objectives of the online communication as well as to build the social environment. In this course the instructor in his Welcome message indicated that WebCSILE/KF should be used to supplement in-class discussion where students can continue class discussions, begin new discussions, organize learning activities or explore new topics of interest. As a result the new views during the course became more and more learner oriented. For example, the view Definition of CMC Distance Education helped to bring in the background knowledge necessary for the course. Then the new view Learner characteristics and preferences was developed giving an opportunity to discuss the learner characteristics as another main topic. Students were encouraged to suggest new views to the instructor as the discussions unfolded according to their learning needs.
The system provides four options to participants engaged in knowledge building. After reading a view the participants of the communal database can write a New Note using plain text or HTML format. Some may prefer to use the Build On capability to collaborate with someone else's note. Others may want to edit a note they have already posted to the database using Edit Note capability. Finally, even a note posted to the database can be deleted by the author at a later date using Delete Note capability of WebCSILE/KF. All these capabilities made the online learning environment more flexible and conducive for students to engage in the online intellectual interactions.
Students were expected to participate in the online discussion during the week, any time convenient to them. In WebCSILE/KF, the students can look at each view and read the sequentially threaded notes one by one, or they can read only the unread notes as highlighted by the program. Students can respond while they read the notes or they could compose off-line and upload the notes to relevant views. Some students preferred to sort the notes by date, thread, or author and download to save online time. All these capabilities encouraged more student participation as they gave them more choices to use WebCSILE/KF according to their own preferred styles.
The Knowledge Forum Interface is available in both English and French.
The CSILE approach is based on a substantial body of theory and research concerning how knowledge is built by communities of experts. It takes as its basic metaphor a community of scientists who learn and advance by constructing knowledge in a social milieu. By interacting with each other, providing both challenge and support, scientists help raise the whole community's knowledge. They start where each member is, but through dialogue, help, questioning, they help each other think through their position and reach new heights of knowledge.
The role of the educator in this metaphor is that of role model, a kind of science director. The educator demonstrates how searching for meaning can take place, asks questions, shows that she also searches for information, and supports the collegial students.
Knowledge Forum has three major parts, a server, a client, and the database. The Knowledge Forum server presently runs on a Unix platform. Knowledge Forum comes in two versions. One version uses a dedicated client program which allows for a graphical display of the views and notes. This dedicated client works only on Macintosh computers. In addition, a version called WebCSILE at the time of our use can be accessed by a web browser. The interface uses tables so requires a table compliant browser (Netscape 2.x or Internet Explorer 2.x or newer. Our course only used the WebCSILE version.
The basic strength of Knowledge Forum is the focus on community building. While all systems can be used with a community focus, CSILE has optimized the communal aspects of the activity. There is a strong support for building on other's ideas, and there are functions such as multiple editing of notes that make it easy for students and teachers to work together. Knowledge Forum has a fairly strong search function which allows for the bringing together of notes of interest to the searcher. Finally, Knowledge Forum has the best features for uploading files and graphics to be included in notes.
A not inconsequential strength is the clarity of its interface design. Needed functions are clearly available and most students were able to make the system work in a short period of time.
Information is available from http://csile.oise.utoronto.ca at The Center for Applied Cognitive Science at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto.
MOOkti (http://noisey.oise.utoronto.ca:9996/) is a user extensible, text-based virtual learning environment based on the LambdaMOO server and software developed by community of Internet based programmers, started at Xerox Parc, and presently hosted by folks at AT&T. This software is freely available to anyone on the net. In a MOO participants can create virtual representations of people, places and things and share them with others. MOOs are polysynchronous environments. Users can create things and talk to people synchronously with people (real time), and also have the ability to work and communicate asynchronously by creating and describing objects, sending MOO mail, posting notes to discussion lists, using note taking transcribing devices, or 'robots' that interact with others in your absence. Asynchronous communication is also in the form of the web pages that are created automatically in the MOO.
MOOkti is an open learning community that presently hosts undergraduate classes from the University of Toronto and the North Central College (Naperville, Ill.), and graduate classes of OISE/UT students. Starting in the fall of 1998, MOOkti will start a 3 year partnership with Schoolnet/Industry Canada to provide project based virtual learning facilities to students nationally.
MOOkti can be accessed by a Java/html interface, or by one of many platform specific clients. Students can view information through the web browser, and communicate and interact with the database and others using the MOOca Java applet. Every player and object in the MOO has a corresponding web page automatically created for it, so users have the choice of using a web browser to view material in html format, or to view it as 'raw' text in the Java client. As this virtual environment consists of an open/public database, participants make their own accounts, and can even set up their own courses. However, an instructor has control over her own space, and can conduct private classes without interruption.
The way in which we used MOOkti in our courses at OISE/UT is that students were given introductions on how to connect to the MOO, move about the database, and communicate with others. This included scripting commands to create objects, describe their character and creations, and add html and images to the automated web pages.
Students were directed to explore the various parts of the MOO to learn about the environment. Meetings were held in a virtual lecture hall called "Lynn's Learning Lounge." The lounge is accompanied by private 'offices' for each student, break out rooms for small group discussion, staff offices, as well as presentation and display spaces. The curriculum was to discuss various topics in the lecture space and breakout rooms, construct personalized spaces, and create an 'Interactive Statue.'
This learning environment represented a small portion of the entire MOO which is used for other purposes. And students were welcome to move freely through the MOO and interact with other.
A MOO is usually thought of as a constructivist learning community. Anything that can be imagined and described in text (and/or html) can be created. The MOO database and server can be used to create a professional community such as MediaMOO, EnviroMOO, and BioMOO, children specific non-school learning settings such as Moose-Crossing and MariMuse, or as a social environment such as BayMOO or LambdaMOO. MOOkti is intended as a multi-use community that encompasses as wide a range of diverse educational opportunities in one space, from a learning space for Icelandic educators, to field study simulations for environmental science students, to casual visits by educators who just want to see what it is all about.
MOOs facilitate collaborative interactions, professional forums and discussions, constructivist learning, community construction, the creation of fantasy worlds or science simulations, and both structured learning environments or anarchic settings. And all these possibilities can exist in one MOO, or in a series of separate MOOs.
As with the other learning environments under consideration, MOOkti has three major parts, the server, the client, and the database. All of these elements are available free of charge to anyone who can figure out how to run them. There are also hundreds of MOOs functioning on the Internet where one can go, and even teach. MOOkti is just one such example that we have developed and tailored to our needs.
The MOOkti server presently runs on an Intel Pentium computer with 48 megabytes of ram running under the Linux (UNIX) operating system. The database has been developing over 3 years and consists of over 3200 objects (360 present users), presently amounting to 10 megabytes of data, and growing daily. MOOkti is administered by 6 volunteers (2 database programmers, 1 topology/simulations programmer, 2 educators, and 1 java programmer). MOO servers can run under Macintosh and Windows as well.
As users create the MOO, extending the database according to their own needs with rooms, objects, simulations, discussion lists, they can use either the Java applet or web-based editing tools to do the work. All aspects of the MOO which are owned by the user can be edited, scripted or programmed at the click of a hypertext link.
The key strength of MOOkti, and MOOs in general, is the fact that anything that can be described textually can be created. Students and teachers can develop and extend the database in anyway they want according to their own educational goals, and their level of interaction can vary accordingly from guest, to player, builder, programmer and administrator.
MOOkti welcomes casual visitors and will be soliciting participation of teachers and students in SchoolNet sponsored activities in the fall. Casual visitors are expected to use existing online orientation tools and help documents to get used to the environment, and it is better to visit in a small group of 2-4 for peer-supported learning. Organized projects and courses have structured orientation and curriculum to help get things on their way. Visit http://noisey.oise.utoronto.ca:9996/ for more information.
The way in which we used all three systems was directed by three primary limitations on our part: time, features we could not use, and the appropriateness of system's philosophy to our pedagogy.
We had a limited amount of time devoted to each system. For the Survey course, each student had about three weeks on each system. While the students became very skilled in learning new systems by the time they reached the third system, there was only enough time to go into each system to a certain depth. This cyclical experience met our goal of ensuring that students gained wide and various experiences on which they could build. As a consequence of the limited time, we did not use all, or even most of the prized features of each system. For example, MOOkti has a rich programming structure available to students to use in the constructing of virtual spaces and learning interactions. While we did use some of the basic programming features of MOOkti in the first course, and a few more in the second course, we did not explore most of the tools available.
Some of the systems had capabilities that were beyond the immediate interests of the course. For example, it might be argued that the most important part of the Virtual University is the help that it provides instructors in setting up the resources for an online course. This and other features are particularly interesting to large courses. Since our resource materials were already available online, we did not explore this capacity.
The final limitation to our use of the systems was probably in some ways the most serious limitation. Each system has an underlying educational philosophy. For example, WebCSILE was developed to support knowledge building from a particular research base following the metaphor of a science research community. And MOOkti was developed to support constructivist learning communities as a polysynchronous act combining both synchronous and asynchronous communication, but focusses strongly on the synchronous component. In these courses, the tools were used to meet the instructor's approach to online learning. We did not follow the key metaphor of WebCSILE, and the classroom structure of the course worked against the community metaphor of MOOkti.
In many instances, we may have used the systems in ways that were quite different than the original designers intended. We did not use them in ways that opposed the philosophy of the technology, but rather we appropriated whatever we needed to get the job done.
| Characteristics of the Three Systems | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| System | Virtual University | WebCSILE (Knowledge Forum) | MOOkti |
| Main Metaphor | A University Campus | Scientific Knowledge Building Community | Constructivist Learning Community |
| Navigation Metaphor | Clicking on university buildings Conferences Subconferences |
Clicking on views | Moving through a text based virtual
space Multiple rooms and spaces |
| Elements found in all three systems | Web based Asynchronous Notes |
Web based Asynchronous Notes |
Web based Asynchronous Notes |
| Unique elements | Templates for organizing course
materials Grade book Unread Note toggle. |
Multiple editing of notes Ease of upload for graphics, files |
Synchronous communication Creation of objects and verbs using programming language |
| Strengths | Good for large classes HTML (web links, graphics) Easy to use administrative controls. |
Clear interface design HTML (web links, graphics) Easy to use administrative controls. |
Encourages active involvement in the design
of the basic environment. Good interface between web and text environments. |
| Training | Training to use basic communication issues fairly easy. Difficulty in using drop down menus. | Interface clear, training to use major features was fairly simple. | Metaphor was strange for some students. Fairly easy to teach basic navigation and communication skills. Programming skills more difficult. |
Our primary response to the use of these three systems was one that many educators have felt. As many learned in response to curriculum initiatives of Tyler (1949) and the Chicago school, you cannot build teacher proof curriculum. Developers of online learning environments should perhaps remember the lessons that educators will turn even the most bulletproof curriculum/learning materials and environments to meet their needs and the needs of their students. As we took these three technologies under our wing, they rapidly underwent a transformation away from what was intended by their progenitors. I think we now tend to look more kindly on technologies that expect us to put our own pedagogical stamp on the way we incorporate the technology into our own work. Other key learnings included the fact that the way students used and perceived time was different than we anticipated. And that despite the enticements of asynchronous online learning, students preferred physical proximity when possible, and found that synchronous communication was always a necessary component of their learning.
We thought there was a developmental aspect in the participants' new learning. We observed a progressive increase in skill level and confidence as participants approached the second and third system. Even though the operational features of each system were different, students developed skills that assisted them in transferring critical pieces of their learning to help master the next system. They learned how to learn new technologies. They were generally more aware of what features were important to them and where to look for these features in the next system. They were also more apt to try to solve their own problems or experiment with the technology to overcome difficulties, both technical and content oriented. This finding is consistent with research by Hodgson and McConnell (1995), who found participants in a technology based learning community were more likely to use the conferencing system in better ways and solve their own problems when they had some understanding of how the underlying system operated. It seems that technological literacy grew with technological dexterity for our students.
As an example, the first group on CSILE took time to learn the program and wanted step by step instructions of virtually every function/feature. Every question posed in the discussion was prefaced with, "How do you..." type inquiries, and participants were more interested in mastering concrete, technical operations such as inserting graphics and html. This had far less to do with knowledge building than becoming acclimatized to the technical aspects of the conferencing system. In contrast, the second group who came to CSILE (with Virtual-U experience) started content oriented discussions on their own and had less difficulty navigating technical features, presumably transferring critical knowledge learned in Virtual-University. Groups also actively looked for features such as the multiple editing feature of CSILE and the sort by thread/date author feature of Virtual-University, perusing menus independently. Questions to facillitators in the lab were reduced considerably as participants moved on to each new system, and questions raised were often much simpler and less time consuming to answer.
This sense of learning transfer also raises the constructivist premise of how learners can be enabled to move from simply wanting the answer to becoming active in seeking out the questions important to them, and how such learning rests on authentic, contextually based activities or tasks (Brown, Collins and Duguid, 1989).
Henri (1992) differentiates tasks that are often deemed "collaborative" into those that are more cooperative i.e. tasks where the group divides the task into smaller units and allocates each member a responsibility and those that involve true collaboration, where the task is accomplished by working jointly with others to build on learning and achieve objectives. While it is true that all three groups in this course worked well cooperatively and collaboratively and seemed satisfied with the group task structure, we felt that the groups behaved somewhat differently. This difference seemed to be tied both to the individual composition of each group and to what types of leaders emerged.
We saw two main types of leadership: those who could provide leadership because of their technical expertise and those who facilitated a supportive and trusting social climate. In one group, a clear leader emerged who had rare talents in both of these areas. Another member of this group was equally skilled in fostering a positive social environment. This group was thought to show a high degree of true collaboration, where members worked jointly at tasks to solve problems, encourage one another in learning new skills, and build on the knowledge of each other. For example, this group often met before and after class on their own initiative to exchange ideas about their ongoing project and to sort out technical problems. Trust and a trading of expertise was a hallmark of this group, and members who had less expertise seemed unafraid to declare their need for help, or that inability was a sign of incompetence.
Groups also showed a good ability to adapt to the shortcomings of a particular system by inventing ways to mimic the missing feature. For example, groups coming to Virtual-U after CSILE had an expectation around being able to edit group notes and had been highly satisfied with this particular feature. To compensate, participants devised methods to copy and paste portions of the note or embed links in a Virtual-u note to the message they wanted to manipulate. While admittedly the innovation was often far from perfect, it may have helped participants cope with their ever changing environment. It also highlighted what features of each system participants valued most, useful information to the participants themselves and to the instructional team.
Another interesting phenomenon we observed was the evolving change in the students' perception of time. Most of the literature on computer mediated communication (CMC) has highlighted the value of time and place independence in CMC because they were identified as traditional distance learning barriers (Seaton, 1993). However, even when given an opportunity to participate on line from anywhere convenient to them at any time, most of the students chose to come to the OISE computer labs. They enjoyed the combination asynchronous and synchronous communication (polysynchronous).
For example, the students using Virtual-U or WebCSILE/KF would compose their notes and after sending would move on to a neighbor's computer screen to read the posted note. They would read the note collaboratively, and then would compose an online reply after verbal discussion. At times, some students uploaded graphics to enhance their point of view or as a fun thing. When another student who happened to read the note with the image would make a comment loud enough for everyone in the lab to hear, and at least two or three students would get up and come to see what is happening on that screen.
When asked why they would like to be in the lab, most of them agreed that they like the physical presence of others working collaboratively on the same task. They purposely used the class time and the OISE computer labs even though most of them had access to computers at home. Both these courses were taught face-to-face during the first half of the class and online the second half, except the four weeks the class only met synchronously in MOO at the scheduled class time. However, most of the online discussions were done asynchronously.
During the second course, MOO meetings were substituted for four classes in the middle of the course. Thus, for these classes it was not necessary to come to the campus at all. It was interesting to note that even though the students were given an option to participate in the MOO synchronously from anywhere they chose, most of the students who lived in Toronto still chose to come to OISE if it was possible. Part of the class was designed to give the participants a chance to socialize, and students would interact with each other verbally, as well as online. It was evident that the students used the class time to socialize with the other members of the group and to familiarize themselves with the virtual environment. They used the MOO to build a sense of community and to develop ideas and directions for their projects. And then other work could be done asynchronously. For those students who lived at some distance from the campus, however, most chose to access the MOO from their homes, and their social activities were limited to the social interaction in the MOO itself.
Students had real time discussions using MOO, sometimes using MOO utilities to keep transcripts of the meetings, when it was necessary for them to discuss their research activities. They found this system more productive and time saving, especially at the initial stage of their research activities, because reaching consensus was quicker and more productive.
The built-in editing capabilities of WebCSILE were conducive to prepare class assignments, especially group assignments. All the members of the group have permission to collaboratively edit a specific note. Even though this was done asynchronously, students would make deadlines so that the group could give feedback quickly. As such, the time independence was modified to suit their tasks.
Even though it is given that learning as a social activity can occur among people both synchronously and asynchronously (Berg, 1995), it became evident that students will try and manipulate an online learning experience to fit their needs where possible. As well they will try to try to maintain the polysynchronous complexity of face to face interactions to the greatest extent possible. Students resort to MOOs as an alternative to face to face interactions and in situations where dynamic communication is necessary. The asynchronous technologies are preferred for extended reflective contributions to a topic or project.
One of the things that differed from the three systems was the cost to use this system. These costs might be divided into administrative costs (particularly in terms of administrative time required) and training costs (again in terms of the time required to learn each system. First, we look at the issue of administrative costs.
Administrative costs refer to the time needed to set up the conference or database, assign individual identities for the teacher and students, and to manage access and course structure. We judge the administrative costs to be roughly equal for the three systems. However, what did differ was the particular roles played by external administrators and the instructor. For example, Virtual University requires that an external administrator create the course conference and then enrol each student in the course. After the basic course is created, the teacher (or in our case the students) can create sub conferences and give permission for people to read or write in various conferences.
With WebCSILE, the basic database is created by an external administrator while student accounts were created and managed by the instructor. Views (the equivalent of Virtual University's conferences) are created by the Instructor.
For MOOkti, everyone applies for an account name and password to an online form. The account name and password are returned in an email message. Structures within the MOO in which the course takes place are created as a part of the experience by the teacher and students. Administrators are present in the learning environment, and they can be consulted ad hoc. It is necessary for the administrators to help with various little day to day aspects of running a MOO, and they are available to help with whatever arises. This is common for most MOOs.
Training costs did differ from system to system. However, training costs have to be considered in the context of system functionality. We observed that it took roughly the same amount of time to teach basic communication functions in each system. By the time the students reached the second and third system, training time was much reduced regardless of the system being encountered. Students reported feeling the most comfort after the initial training with the Virtual University and WebCSILE systems with somewhat less comfort with MOOkti.
The main question with training time in MOOkti, however, has to do with what level of skills is necessary. Basic navigation and communication skills could be taught in an hour or two. The main advantage of the MOO is the ability to alter the virtual reality by building the learning space yourself and changing descriptions, building structures, programming actions, etc. These intermediate and advanced skills took quite a bit longer. They might not be necessary in some uses of the MOO, but some of the advanced skills became important to achieve the learning outcomes we wanted from using the MOO.
We might begin with the question that seems the most obvious. Is there a best system? Our experience is that different systems are not really comparable. So, perhaps the question could be restated, "when is a particular system best?"
Certainly, there were some unique features and a large number of features that were common to all three systems. For example, Virtual University had the best support for organizing course materials, and even though we did not use these features they could be very useful for settings where the instructor was new to online teaching or for courses with large enrollments that could take advantage of features such as the grade book.
Another set of unique features were the programming aspects available in MOOkti that allowed students to actually develop and extend the database and create their own learning settings. Students could learn how to make objects or spaces or actions. These could be used to support a wide variety of different forms of education. In addition, in a beginning computer course it allowed for a fairly easy to use programming language. Finally, MOOkti was the only system that we used that supported synchronous conferencing.
In terms of common features, all three systems supported some kind of asynchronous conferencing. Perhaps the best developed system in this regard was WebCSILE. The ability to both create new notes and edit older notes in a well developed editor was particularly useful. Virtual University had a fair editor for the creation of notes, but will not allow for subsequent editing of notes, a major limitation in our view.
So, in terms of choice of system, the main place to start is to decide whether the main structure of the course is going to fit one of the metaphors better than another. Then, think about which set of features might be easiest to use. Missing features can be simulated in most other systems.
It is our recommendation, though, that you explore a number of systems. And by explore here, we mean actually teach a course using different systems. The subtle differences are not easily seen in a short demonstration of a system. As you and your students work with a system, you can see what works best for you. It is probably important not to stick to the first one you find, or are given. The choice of a conferencing system seems to be political in most institutions, but it is really important to actually try teaching with various systems before the final decision is made.
Educators should be very clear on the amount of time they are willing to invest in becoming competent in the technology as well. While a MOO provides by far the greatest flexibility and opportunities for community and learning, they also have the longest series of learning curves. Virtual University has limitations that my frustrate some, but there may be a greater chance for success on the part of a newbie (novice) internet based educator.
In summary, we were pleased with the outcomes of our courses. We felt that we had achieved a constructivist, mutually supportive, learning community. This was the first time of which we are aware that one course asked students to learn several different conferencing systems. This expectation had a major benefit in that the students were able to understand the underlying metaphors and structures of the systems, and it allowed the students to move their attention from strict "how to" questions to questions of why. Their skills were notably advanced from earlier offerings from the same courses. They were able to demonstrate at the end of the courses that they could do educationally interesting things with their skills.
And we learned an immense amount as well. Everybody struggled together, both learning how to do things with the systems, but also we were working on the best ways to help each other learn, attempting to develop our facilitation skills. We had the sense that a real community developed in each of the courses. The systems seemed to enhance our face-to-face interaction and to energize our learning searches.
Perhaps this is not so surprising. It has long been noted that people learn more from trying to put together a multi-media presentation than being exposed to a multi-media presentation. We think this is true of working with conferencing systems as well.
Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, January/February, 22-30.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers. ed. Anthony R. Kaye. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Hodgson, V. and McConnell, D. (1995). Cooperative learning and development networks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 11, 211-224.
Seaton, W. J. (1993). Computer-Mediated Communication and student self- directed learning. Open Learning, June,49-54.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon Schuster.
Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: Chicago.