This paper was submitted as part of my Doctoral Comprehensive exams December 1995. All text is copywrite D. Jason Nolan. If you want to use it or quote from it, please contact me.
[Transformative and Holistic Learning | CMC: Over Schooled and Under Educated | MUDs: Research into Educational Computer Mediated Communication | Index]
In this paper, I will outline two proposals that will inquire into an emerging form of Educational Computer Mediated Communication (EdCMC) commonly referred to as MUDs. This form of EdCMC is basically a text-based Virtual Reality (VR) program that is best understood by a related acronym MUSE or Multi User Simulated Environment. MUDs offer a rich and dynamic learning environment, and though there have been many studies of online learning by prominent educational researchers (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff, 1995; Mason, 1992; Rice, 1990; Riel & Harasim, 1994) , there has been little educational research into MUDs themselves. Most research comes from graduate level researchers in various fields, who self-publish on the WWW . MUDs need to be assessed for their potential as an online educational resource, because of the variety of uses to which can be put.
These proposals consider the use of MUDs and their potential for developing a sense of community, and skills in programming, writing and communication. The approach will be to analyse the effectiveness of an online curriculum intended to give students the opportunity to develop narratives of self, community and bioregion in a multisynchronous EdCMC context. Students will develop and present artefacts in which both the creator of the artefact & creators of other artefacts have the opportunity to interact; critiquing, sharing and exploring experiences in both artefacts and in real life (IRL).
These proposals are described in terms of conceptual underpinnings, focus questions, phenomenon observed, proposed methodology, claims and outcomes (Novak & Gowin, 1984) . The particular questions addressed are: Do MUDs promote (1) the development of community; (2) help students develop an understanding of online and IRL environments; (3) allow these students, as creators of MUD artefacts, to construct their own meaning and knowledge in a constructionist manner (Papert, 1991) .
The results of a study carried out according to either one of these proposals will be of interest to teachers moving into online learning and EdCMC, as well as researchers who have worked on more traditional forms of online learning. There is a real need to understand what MUDs and EdCMC, can do for learning and to learning (including impact on education, teachers, students, communities and societies). A number of educational researchers (Giroux, 1992; 1994; Olson & Sullivan, 1993; Wessells, 1990) seem to base their assessment of this technology on popular fears of computers as isolating technologies, of corporate and government control of thought and learning, and a positivist embrace of technology apologists in the media and education. But the growth of the Internet, and the anarchic and chaotic virtual communities that have spontaneously appeared, such as Howard Reingold (1993) and Jim Cummins (1995) describe reveal dynamic opportunities for education to make the 'great leap forward' into transformative/holistic visions of greater community, democracy, and emancipation from the increased control of society by bureaucracy and administrations.
The two proposals will come from radically different, perhaps opposing, sides of curriculum research. The first will be in the form of qualitative Aesthetic inquiry (Eisner, 1991; Eisner, 1985; Flinders & Eisner, 1994; Jackson, 1992; Schwab, 1971; Vallance, 1991) , and the second will be a quantitative proposal based on ideas from various papers (Mason, 1992; Trenholm, 1986; Rice, 1990; Riel, 1994). Both will draw on Gowin's Vee [see below] (Novak & Gowin, 1984) as a heuristic model to help in the unpacking of the problems of inquiry.
Aesthetic Inquiry will consdier the unquantifiable in learning through the lens of the Critic's Connoisseurship and five aesthetic dimensions, the Intentional, Structural, Curricular, Pedagogical, and Evaluative (Eisner, 1991) . This form of inquiry, using Ethnographic tools, for example, generates thick descriptions, and contextualizes them amid an analysis based on the Critic's experience and knowledge, as well as, analysis of dynamic and static aspects of the learning environment. The search will be for the particular, for individual relationships, and what Eisner calls examples of epistemic seeing (smell taste, tactility, voice, manner, movement, and visual environments). This will be particularly challenging in a virtual environment.
Configurational Validity, while still only a proposed technique offers promise for the aesthetic analysis of MUD interactions (Goldman-Segall, 1995) . Building on the multiple lens of Phenomenological inquiry, Goldman-Segall tries to integrate the diverse webs of events into "constellations" of meaning in order to try to understand 'positions of priviledge' (1995, 2) . She bases this premise on the idea that "validity in research is enriched by multiple points of view" (p. 3). For MUD research, Configurational Validity is perhaps sufficiently inclusive to provide a complete picture of the interactions between students and students, and students and artefacts.
The quantitative aspects of this inquiry confines itself to the empirically assertainable and statistically representable events and interactions. In the search for the generalizable a sense that what happens in the MUD will lead to replicability and transfirrability of events and potential experiences.
MUDs are dynamic educational environments. One of the key factors of the MUD to be used in this study, called a MOO (Mud Object Oriented-which refers to the programming language involved) (Curtis, 1992) is its user extensibility. As with other forms of online learning, student can conference in real time, and leave messages for individuals and groups of people. Unlike other forms of online learning environments, MUDs are free. The software is free, joining a MUD is free, and using simple Telnet protocols, hundreds of MUDs/MOOs are accessable. Saying that MUDs are free does not address the social costs of accepting this technology, or issues of availability to all people, but in relation to all other forms of educational technology. Inside a MOO, things are the same. MOOs provide a tabula rasa upon which anything can be created that can be presented textually-anything. This fundamental openess, written right into the software, leads to the manifestation of MOOs as online virtual communities. And it is this formation of community, completely under the control of the participants by mutual consent, that makes them a unique educational resource for the development, sharing and communicating within narratives of self, community and bioregion created by student for student, with or without teacher intervention.
Method One: Qualitative Aesthetic
Conceptual Underpinnings
According to Vallance (1991), aesthetic inquiry is less of a process than an attitude that seeks out the qualities of experience that give meaning to a learning situation and influence our reaction to that situation. The conceptual underpinnings of this qualitative aesthetic inquiry is based on a transformative and holistic world view which realizes that learning settings are dynamic (Chaotic) (Caine & Caine, 1994) environments that make it impossible to 'control' variables in research. In a micro sense, this proposal looks to Drake's Story Model of curriculum development and Papert's notion of Constructionist learning (Drake, 1992; 1993; Papert, 1991) .
Aesthetic Inquiry is neither interested in cause and effect, generalizability, replicability or prediction, but rather looks at the "special qualities of curriculum" in order to help make it better. It is, in part, a recognition that both teaching and learning are art forms, not mechanistic or administrativistic events.
The strengths of the qualitative proposal is in its richness and the compleixty of the interactions that it recognizes and gives voice to. By encountering the specific and particular, aesthetic inquiry looks to the deeper, and more messy, fuzzy and unquantifiable in learning, and human interactions. This expression reinforces the world view that learning is part of a greater web of interactions.
Mudding, as a means of making learning connections, transcends the classroom while incorporating it within the matrix of connections. The opportunity for "making connections between mind and body; self and inner self; self and environment; subject areas; logical thinking and intuitive thinking" (Miller, Cassie, & Drake, 1990, p. 21) is built upon by students bringing the experiences from their physical world within this global narrative virtual world to share with others. This attitude towards learning fits well with those of Papert (1991, p. 2) : "Those who like to play with images of structures emerging from their own chaos, lifting themselves by their own bootstraps, are very likely predisposed to constructionism". Both Miller and Papert recognize that what can be taught is only the barest aspect of learning, and that it is when the individual makes (constructs) meaning of the world as part of personal experience that learning progresses to advanced levels. The mode of inquiry is also holistic, since it looks at all discernable elements of a situation, from pedagogy to chalk dust (Eisner, 1991) to EdCMC.
Focus Questions
The focus questions that should pull all this together, and lead to a valuable interplay between the conceptual and methodological aspects of research (Novak, 1991) , as they relate to this proposed project, are:
· Technical-Can the use of the Internet and computers motivate students to develop narratives? Do the social factors inherent in the above described conceptual underpinnings (student-centred, -designed, -mediated, peer-to- peer) encourage female students to interact with computers? Does it discourage male students, who traditionally see computers as a tool to be dominated?
· Social-Is an audience important to students? Does telling their own story give students a sense of place, empowerment, and control over their own destinies? Is MOO participation an empowering experience? (Reed, 1992) . Do virtual learning experiences lead to the development of virtual communities? (Reingold, 1993)
· Pedagogical-Does the use of computers in the above described manner impact positively on student's ability to present ideas in an organized and sophisticated fashion of higher calibre than has been traditionally observed in students of similar abilities who have not had access to this form of EdCMC?
The following elements may be observable:
· Does the language and complexity of interactions grow over time, or is it static?
· Do communities form, or is there a sense of community;
· Are MOO interactions static or dynamic, inclusive or exclusive, gender biased?
· Do other users interact wth student created objects/artifacts, or are they ignored?
· Which types of artifacts are interacted with or ignored?
· What levels of originality or emulation can be observed in interactions and creation of artifacts?
· How much of the interactions and artifacts reflect IRL interactions and preparation?
Phenomenon Observed
This proposal intends to look at a variety of phenomenon, all within the MOO. Online journaling; research criteria dependent, but student developed, peer to peer interviews; transcripts of real time communication; and observation of life within the MOO will all be observed and recorded within the MOO. Students will be directed, through external and online tutorials, to manifest narratives developed before the start of the MOO as artefacts that can be interacted with, or within, by themselves, other students, and this researcher . All this data can be collected, usually automatically, within the MOO environment by computer generated records.
Methodology
Techniques drawn from Ethnographic research will allow for the development of thick descriptions of how engaging the artefacts are, and thick descriptions of elements of community (if observed). Descriptions will all be made within the MOO itself . The research and that which is researched will form one large artifact that can be returned to and experienced.
Rice's sense of Network Variables can be considered in ascertaining where a sense of community has developed. Looking for signs of connectedness to other members; reciprocity-the level of assistance given to others; indirect ties in conveying new information; the distribution of rolls-who takes leadership, "initiates laisons;" binds individuals together; and "membership in clusters, groups or cliques" (Rice, 1990, 629) will be included in the descriptions.
Outcomes
Aesthetic Inquiry will look for a developing sense of community, a sense of mastery of environment, sense of narrative, success in manifesting narrative, rich/thick self descriptions of experience and the choices students make. Of particular interest will be how non-verbal communication is presented in the text-based interactions, and the outcomes of its presence or lack of, in the development of community. "Aesthetic inquiry will focus on certain qualities and principles that shape our reaction to the situation; it will seek to identify patterns, balances or imbalances, rhythms, discordant notes, any experiential qualities that color our judgement of the situation. A racist tone or sexist bias may color our reactions" more than anything else in a learning environment (Vallance, 1991, p. 160) . If the research shows the development of community, the student's awareness of this development will represent an opportunity for students to understand the importance of developing a sense of community as a knowledge and power producing event.
Student constructed artefacts that reflect a sense of empowerment, and personal knowing where "through a dialogical encounter... the individual begins to discover that he creates meaning..." (Padgham in Jackson, 1992, p. 52) will be of particular interest, as they will demonstrate the value of MOOs as more than another techie toy of 'big science' but a dynamic force for individual and community knowledge.
Method Two: Quantitative
Conceptual Underpinnings
MOOs can be considered as ideal learning environments for children to
learn computer, programming, writing and interpersonal skills. In the world
of changing employment conditions, students need to develop felxibility.
Incorporating an empiricist sense that there is much to be learned from
objectively obtained and analysed data, this portion of the study will look
for events and artefacts that support the notion that MOOs foster, in addition
to the above mentioned skills, the development of notions of community with
the assistance of Drake's Story Model and Papert's ideas of Constructionist
learning.
Focus questions
The focus questions in this proposal do reflect some of the questions noted above, but they are intended to be more quantifiable: Is a MOO a useful tool for learning computer programming? Since computers seem to be of greater interest to male students, does MOO use by students reveal a greater gender balance, in terms of access, interest, use, and interactions? Do students interact with artefacts created by other students? Do student created artefacts reflect constructionist learning? Finally, are their any quantifiable indications that community forms through the use of MOOs?
Phenomenon Observed
This research proposal will look for novel examples in the producation of artefacts; whether students copy models from tutorials and examples, or whether they present novel combinations from a variety of sources. Quantitative factors that can be considered per student, per class, per age group, per gender include: the frequency of connections per week measured over time; the length of time connected per session measured over time; the amount of time spent in construction of narrative spaces, exploring narrative spaces, spent in synchronous communication in narrative spaces will be observed to obtain a picture of the student's engagement in the MOO activity to see if students make time to participate or if they participate only when given class time.
What students are doing in the MOO will be recorded through mechanisms within the software, available to all members. Are they spending their time in tutorials, creating artefacts, visiting artefacts created by other, or communicating with others? Transcripts of online communication will be kept and analyzed according to methods described below.
Methodology
The final choice of method(s) will depend on an initial assessment of the data. Various methods can be used to analyze interactions in the MOO. Some of these are Semantic Trace Analysis, Task Phase Analysis, Hypertext Analysis, and Discourse Analysis (Riel & Harasim, 1994) . As well, formal interviews and short tests of programming skill will be used to assess attitudes and skills. Computer generated statistics will also be used (Mason, 1992) . Harasim and her collegues describe the techniques for the automated collection of data through computer software (Riel & Harasim, 1994) .
Semanitic Trace Analysis is "focused on the content of student messages tracing the development of ideas" (Riel & Harasim, 1994, p. 9) . As well, Harasim suggests Hypertext Analysis to code messages for analysis "(1) according to content themes, and (2) in terms of different interactive motives." This can be done in two groups: curriculum centred and student generated. Harasim provides five categories "knowledge acquisition, knowledge integration, elaboration, socio-emotional, and proceedural" (1994, p. 9) .
Though I find the attempt to create convoluted classifications for on-line communication suspect, Riel and Harasim (1994) present some useful options for the ordering of data. Task Phase Analysis and Discourse Analysis of Network Interactions, as well as the analysis of writing skills, can all contribute to a greater understanding of the complexity of the interactions on the part of students when it comes to designing and experiencing virtual learning and community in MUDs. Mason's (1992) sense of building a topology of communication can be developed by looking at whether students: build on previous messages, draw on own experience, refer to course material, refer to relevant material outside the course, initiate new ideas for discussion? Part of this can be student surveys on their pre-conceptions and apprehensions regarding online learning. And then after the activity, on what they think happened, and what they thought they were suposed to have learned, or what they did learn (Trenholm, 1986) .
Finally, computer generated statistics (Mason, 1992; Rice, 1990) will fill out the picture by including the following data: number of patrticipants; date, time, source, duration of connections; who interacts with whom; length frequency of communication; type of communication (synchronous, asynchronous, polysynchronous ); proportional relationships between types of communication for user/group of users/project; geographical position of users; technology used by user/project and how that effects the project/interaction.
In order to assess where and if community has formed, the transcripts of synchronous communication along with interviews will provide indicators and references to community like interactions; though it is not clear what these may be at this time.
Outcomes
Outcomes should reflect the focus questions. This research hopes to show that MOOs represent a viable tool for students to learn programming skills, and textual communication skills, and develop a sense of narrative. Also, I hope to show that students develop a sense of community in this online context; as sense that may be transferable to real life situations.
Identify Strengths and Weaknesses
The strengths of the quantitative proposal will be found in generalizability and transferability of research outcomes. Statistics derived from the various types of analysis proposed can be compared with future studies of similar groups of students under varying conditions. The striving for an objective understanding of the events and objects under consideration is laudable even if problematic, but this type of research speaks to a particular world view that come into question more and more as alternatives gain credibility in the educational community.
This quantitative form of inquiry, in my mind, speaks to a thin description of education as a whole. It leads to a reductionist oversimplification of learning and social interactions. As such, quantitative research alone, and the generalizations resulting from it creates a sense that learning environments are things to be applied to students, like the computer program on which it is based.
Conclusion: Use both
Eventually, I think that the qualitative/quantitative debate is a bit of a joke, an anachronistic debate that is more fetish than functional. While quantitative research does speak to an outmoded empirical world view, I think that researchers entering the field of curriculum inquiry will see quantitative and qualitative inquiry as a variety of tools and methods to be mixed and matched according to the issues important to their area of specialization, and the needs at hand (Salomon, 1991) . Personally, as a student of curriculum studies, there is no objective reality. As such there are no truly verifiable or transferable aspects of a study, but there is generalizable wisdom, and aspects of a situation that are relocalizable. We are faced with uneasy workings, and thick descriptions, despite the statistics.
Accordingly, I plan to use the tools at hand to get as complete a pictures as possible, and I would never ignore an available form of data collection. To do so would be to ignore both the multiplicity of world views held by the consumers of research, and that research into educational practice is research into a dynamic, not a static, system.
References
Benedikt, L. B., & Ciskowski, D. (1995). MUDs: Exploring Virtual Worlds on the Internet. Indianapolis, Indiana: Bradey Publishing.
Caine, G., & Caine, R. N. (1994). Patterns of Wholeness: Can Complexity and Systems Theory Help Us Understand Restructuring of Schools. AERA New Orleans.
Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave New Schools: Challenging Cultural Illiteracy through Global Learning Networks. Toronto: O.I.S.E. Press.
Curtis, P. (1992). Mudding: Social Phenomena in Text-Based Virtual Realities. [http://www.lucien.sims.berkeley.edu/MOO/DIAC92.ps].
Drake, S. M. (1992). Developing an Integrated Curriculum Using the Story Model. Toronto: O.I.S.E. Press.
Drake, S. M. (1993). Planning Integrated Curriculum: The Call to Adventure. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Eisner, E. (1991). The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: Macmillian.
Eisner, E. W. (1985). The Educational Imagination (2d. ed.). New York: MacMillan.
Flinders, D. A., & Eisner, W. E. (1994). Educational Criticism as a Form of Qualitative Inquiry. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(4), 341-361.
Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. New York: Routledge.
Giroux, H. A. (1994). Disturbing Pleasures: Learning Popular Culture. New York: Routledge.
Goldman-Segall, R. (1995). Configuational Validity: A Proposal for Analyzing Ethnographic Multimedia Narratives. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 4(2), ##-##.
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackson, P. (1992). Handbook of Research on Curriculum. New York: MacMillan.
Mason, R. (1992). Evaluating Methodologies for Computer Conferencing Applications. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing (pp. 105-116). Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Miller, J. P., Cassie, J. R. B., & Drake, S. M. (1990). Holistic Learning: A Teacher's Guide to Integrated Studies. Toronto: O.I.S.E. Press.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, M. (1991). Liquid Architecture in Cyberspace. In M. Benedikt (Ed.), Cyberspace: First Steps (pp. 225-254). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Olson, C. P., & Sullivan, E. V. (1993). Beyond the Mania: Critical Approaches to Computers in Education. In L. L. S. J. H. M. Stewin (Ed.), Contemporary Educational Issues: The Canadian Mosaic (pp. 424-441). Mississauga: Copp-Clark Pitman.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating Constructionism. In I. H. a. S. Papert (Ed.), Constructionism Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Popkewitz, T. S. Paradigm and Ideology in Educational Research: The Social Functions of the Intellectual. London: Falmer Press.
Reed, E. (1992, Cultural Formations in Text-Based Virtual Realities. p.
Reingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New York: Harper.
Rice, D. E. (1990). Computer-mediated communication system network data: theoretical concerns and expirical examples. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies, 32, 627-647.
Riel, M., & Harasim, L. (1994). Research Perspectives on Network Learning. Journal of Machine-Mediated Communication, In Press.
Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: The Analytic and Systemic Approaches to Educational Research. Educational Researcher, August-September, 10-18.
Schwab, J. J. (1971). The Practical: Arts of Eclectic. School Review, 493-542.
Trenholm, S. (1986). Research Methods. InHuman Communication Theory (pp. 233-249). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Vallance, E. (1991). Aesthetic Inquiry: Art Criticism. In E. C. Short (Ed.), Forms of Curriculum Inquiry (pp. 155-172). Albany, N.Y.: S.U.N.Y.
Wessells, M. G. (1990). Computer, Self, and Society. Toronto: Prentice Hall.