Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
THE CHALLENGES STUDENTS FACE IN ONLINE LEARNING
In accordance with social-constructivist pedagogy (Vygotsky, 1978), the four ways students engage with learning environment indicate the social aspects central to collaborative online learning. Moore (1989) defines three interdependent modes (Swan, 2003) of interaction in distance education: interaction with content, with the instructor, and with peers. A fourth mode of interaction, the course interface, evolves when distance education progresses to an internet-delivered mode. The clarity of design, interaction with instructors, and active discussion among course participants significantly influence students’ learning and satisfaction. Individually and collectively, these four components contribute to the success rate of online courses.
The prominence of the instructor’s role in education varies. Collison et al (2000) propose that the role of guide is the most appropriate style of facilitation for online learning communities. While not interfering in the flow of the course, guiding requires the facilitator to focus participants on the learning, deepen the dialogue, and foster the online learning culture. This ensures that participants become responsible scholars with the instructor overseeing students’ developing expertise (Collison et al., 2000; Mason, 1991). However, both learners and instructors need guidance to understand their new roles in the online classes (Blignaut & Trollip, 2003). Perhaps the appropriate use of metaphors can soothe learners’ fears of treading on unfamiliar online terrain with comparisons to familiar situations. In a constructivist learning environment, active student-participation is essential to achieving learning outcomes (King, 2002; Swan, 2003). A strong sense of community provides learners the support to deal with challenges and difficulties (Rovai & Wighting, 2005). Group interaction promotes the achievement of joint goals (Heppell & Ramondt, 1998). Metaphors may provide a framework guiding learners in engaging with peers, inspiring them to better the scope and quality of online communication, and contributing to a collaborative learning experience. Students abandon online courses when they consistently feel lost in cyberspace (Chyung, 2001). A detailed analysis of the target audience as the starting point for the design of a learning intervention is advocated in the ADDIE model of instructional design (Dick & Carey, 1978). This analysis will also inform the choice of metaphor. The popular belief that visual metaphors such as icons improve students’ online performance remained anecdotal until the late 1980s. Smilowitz (n.d.) provides empirical evidence that some metaphors, when used as navigational aids, can facilitate interaction with the interface, while others remain completely ineffective.
Learners construct knowledge by matching new information with pre-knowledge (Merrill, 2002). Engagement with the learning material does not take place in isolation from interaction with other modes of internet delivered courses. Instructional designers should plan for a wide spectrum of interaction (Moore, 1989).
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF METAPHORS
Since antiquity metaphors have informed literature. The word metaphor has its origin in Greek, from metapherein, ‘to transfer’ (Oxford Dictionary). A metaphor is essentially a comparison between a vehicle (the known) and a tenor (the unknown) (Ortony, 1975), whereas Lakoff and Johnson (1980) use the corresponding terms target and source. Ortony (1975) recognises no cognitive differences between similes, metaphors and analogies, even though similes compare using like or as, and metaphors draw direct comparisons.
One chooses a metaphoric vehicle because of its experiential base and its familiarity to the student (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). The vehicle embodies some un-described, but wellunderstood qualities; some are literal and some are not. Some conceptual correspondence (mapping) may pre-exist between the vehicle and the unknown topic. The qualities transferred or mapped onto the topic or target domain are termed entailments (Kovecses, 2003). A good metaphor awakens a network of entailments from pre-experience and serves as a guide to understanding and learning. The qualities that the vehicle and topic have in common are called the ground and those that are dissimilar are called the tensions.
The salience of a metaphor refers to a distinctive set of plausible and appropriate characteristics that have the potential to be transferred, excluding those that give rise to tension (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Ortony, 1975). Contemporary authors recognise three hypotheses for using metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Ortony, 1975). Due to their compactness, they replace long descriptions. The inexpressibility hypothesis states that metaphor is used when it is hard to find the proper literal words in the particular language: “whereof one cannot speak literally, thereof one should speak metaphorically” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Ortony, 1975). The vividness of metaphor relates to reconstructing perceived experiences, recalling emotive, sensory and cognitive aspects. Metaphor notation has evolved from Lakoff’s (1980) use of capital letters: A IS B, without use of quotation marks, to the contemporary version using capitalised italics in quotation marks: “A IS B” (Kovecses, 2003; Low, 2003; Ritchie, 2004). Ortony originally notates his metaphors with small letters in quotation marks (1975), and later italicises them (1987) for instance “a is b” which is also generally used for metaphorical expressions as illustrated by Thomas et al (2001).
In the sample metaphor, “COMPUTER IS BRAIN” (figure 1), a computer can be described in terms of a brain to someone who does not know about computers, but knows about a brain. It therefore conjures up thoughts about the qualities and functions of the brain. The characteristics or potential entailments of a brain include inter alia: a brain does mathematical procedures; it consists of a network of nervous connections; it is instrumental in interpreting sight and hearing; it is capable of abstract thought, music etc. The listener will try to imbue the computer with the salient or distinctive transferable characteristics of a brain; discarding aspects such as being walnut-shaped, soft, capable of abstract thought (all giving rise to the tension) but retain the ground consisting of mathematical calculation and structure of a network. The provision for understanding lies therein that the creator of the metaphor should know that the listener has enough pre-knowledge of the entailments of a brain. The unidirectional metaphor illustration in figure 1 rests on the common ground that the receiver knows a little about computers, but is not a computer scientist, as the context influences understanding of the metaphor (Ritchie, 2004). What the vehicle and topic share, Ortony (1975) originally termed ground whereas Ritchie (2004) describes common ground as the mutual cognitive environment between the participants (figure 1).
The Dynamics of Learner Participation in a Virtual Learning Environment
1. INTRODUCTION
2. CONTEXTUALISING THE STUDY
3. LITERATURE SURVEY
3.1 Online Learning
3.2 Facilitator Participation
3.3 Student Participation
3.4 Success in Online Learning
4. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH
4.1 Planning the Intervention
4.2 Research Questions
5. METHODOLOGY, STRATEGIES AND PROCEDURES
5.1 The Population
5.2 Mixed Methodological Strategies
6. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
6.1 Internal Validity
6.2 External Validity
7. HOW TO READ THE THESIS
Reviewing Metaphors for Online Learning
1. ABSTRACT
2. INTRODUCTION
3. THE CHALLENGES STUDENTS FACE IN ONLINE LEARNING
4. LEARNING WITH METAPHORS
5. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF METAPHORS
6. EXAMPLES OF METAPHORS IN ONLINE LEARNING
6.1 Metaphors for Course Introduction
6.2 Metaphors for Navigating to Virtual Places
6.3 Metaphors for Learning New Information
6.4 Metaphors for Communication
6.5 Metaphors for Collaboration
6.6 Metaphors for Student Support
6.7 Metaphors for Different Cultures
7. LESSONS FROM USING ONLINE METAPHORS
7.1 Themes for Metaphors
7.2 Functions of Metaphors
7.3 Inappropriate Metaphors
7.4 Supporting Learning Outcomes
8. SYNTHESIS
9. REFERENCES
Using a Soccer Tournament Metaphor in a Distributed Course on Online Learning
1. ABSTRACT
2. INTRODUCTION
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Requirements for Successful Online Learning
3.2 Metaphors in Learning
4. CONTEXT OF STUDY
4.1 Choosing a Metaphor
4.2 Designing the Course for the Soccer Tournament Metaphor
5. METHODOLOGY
6. FINDINGS
7. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
7.1 Metaphors for Developing an Online Learning Community
7.2 Metaphors for Social Interaction and Development of an Online Student Community
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 Peer Learning and Collaboration
8.2 Hidden and Sensitive Agendas
8.3 Online Facilitation
8.4 Student-Centred Learning
9. REFERENCES
Methical Jane: Perspectives of an Undisclosed Virtual Student
1. ABSTRACT
2. INTRODUCTION
3. LITERATURE STUDY
3.1 Online Support
3.2 The Role of the Instructor
3.3 The Role of Co-students
4. CONTEXT OF STUDY
4.1 Course Design
4.2 Virtual Jane’s Role
4.3 Facilitation
5. METHODOLOGY
6. FINDINGS
7. DISCUSSION
7.1 The Ethical Issues
7.2 Student Reactions to Virtual Jane
7.3 The Facilitator’s Perspective of Jane
8. CONCLUSIONS
8.1 How do Students Feel About the Ethical Issues of Hiding and then Disclosing the Identity of a Virtual Student?
8.2 How does a Virtual Student Enhance Online Learning?
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
10. REFERENCES
Facilitating an Online Distributed Course: Virtual Jane, not an Ordinary Student
1. ABSTRACT
2. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY
3. LITERATURE STUDY
3.1 Course and Content Interaction
3.2 Facilitator Roles and Interaction
3.3 Interaction with Peer Students
4. BACKGROUND OF STUDY
5. METHODOLOGY
6. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
6.1 How does a Virtual Community of Learners Grow?
6.2 How did Virtual Jane Resemble Virtual Joe?
6.3 Describing Virtual Jane
6.4 Jane’s Facilitation Functions
6.5 Students’ Opinions of Jane
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 How can a Virtual Student Contribute to the Formation of a Virtual Community of Students?
7.2 How did the Students Perceive this Fictitious Student?
7.3 Did Jane Enhance the Students’ Online Educational Experience?
7.4 Are There More Things That we Could do With Jane to Improve the Web-Based Course?
8. REFERENCES
Read-Only Participants: a Case for Student Communication in Online Classes
1. ABSTRACT
2. BACKGROUND
3. LITERATURE
3.1 The Debate in Favour of Online Participation
3.2 The Case for Read-only Participation
3.3 Facilitator Participation
4. CONTEXT OF THIS STUDY
5. METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
6. DISCUSSION
6.1 Student Online Visibility and Learning Success
6.2 Quality Participation
6.3 Virtual Community
7. CONCLUSIONS
8. REFERENCES
Synopsis, Conclusions and Recommendations
1. INTRODUCTION
2. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE ARTICLES
2.1 Reviewing Metaphors for Online Learning
2.2 Using a Soccer Tournament Metaphor in a Distributed Course on Online Learning
2.3 Methical Jane: Perspectives of an Undisclosed Virtual Student
2.4 Facilitating an Online Distributed Course: Virtual Jane, not an Ordinary Student
2.5 Read-only Participants: a Case for Student Communication in Online Classes
3. ADDRESSING THE PRIME RESEARCH QUESTION
3.1 Course Structure, Content and Technology
3.2 Facilitation
3.3 Student Participation
3.4 Learning Success
3.4 A Theory of Dynamics of Participation in an Online Community
4. THE LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Metaphors
5.2 A Virtual Student
5.3 Read-only Participation
5.4 Other Recommendations for Future Research
6. THE VALUE OF THE STUDY
7. REFERENCES
Bibliography
