I’d like to take a different approach to that offered by Andrew Shail in his write-up of the ‘Interfaces: English Studies and the Computer’ Conference in the English Subject Centre Newsletter 10 (June 2006). Shail opens his report with what is effectively a list of ten reasons for English tutors to dismiss e-learning, all of which apparently ‘featured heavily in discussion’ during ‘Interfaces’.(1) Whilst some of these statements raise valid concerns, others of them are not true in my experience.(2) I am also weary of the knee-jerk dismissal of e-learning by some English scholars that emerges sooner or later in almost every discussion of the topic to which I have been privy. So, perversely, I’d like to be positive about some of the possibilities that e-learning can afford English Studies. I don’t see myself as some kind of ‘techno-nerd’, and nor do I think I am notably highly-skilled or precociously quick in relation to technology. I am, however, interested in pedagogy, and it is through experimenting with e-learning in some of my classes – in particular through using VLEs (Virtual Learning Environments) – that I have found myself reflecting on the processes involved in teaching. What is e-learning but learning that happens to involve digital and online tools in some part of that process? Surely English lecturers involved with e-learning want to encourage the same attributes, characteristics and skills in their students that all English staff do, whatever tools they are using?(3)
The Creating and Assessing Online Discussion Forums Conference in May 2006 was a day for presenting, sharing and discussing examples of best practice and genuine innovation in relation to the use of VLEs and their Discussion Boards/Forums within the Subject. It was attended by over 40 people, making it one of the most popular Subject Centre sponsored e-learning conferences yet. The day was divided into three parts – ‘Reflections on Innovative Design’, ‘E-Moderating’ and ‘To Assess or Not to Assess…’ – and what will be clear from the following summary is that frequently these topics overlapped in the presentations made.
Ben Colbert and Frank Wilson (Wolverhampton) kicked off the day with ‘Weaning the WOLF Cubs: Using a VLE in First-Year English Studies’. They introduced their use of the Wolverhampton Online Learning Framework (WOLF – a custom-built VLE) with a large (c. 160) first-level Introduction to Literature module. The work was assessed, and thus mandatory. After an initial ‘how to use a discussion forum’ session with the class in a computer lab, using icebreaker activities to familiarise students with how to post and reply to messages, eight online sessions followed over the course of the module. The aim was to get students to research, reflect and respond in relation to the designated tasks. Their use of the VLE was integrated into the course as a whole (alongside lectures, face-to-face seminars and tutorials), and took a ‘building block’ approach in which the online activities moved from simple to more complex as the module progressed. They also emphasised the need to ‘see as students see’ when thinking about the design of tasks. Their activities included (i) teaching students how to develop a discussion ‘thread’ by asking them to construct a communally-authored sequel to a novel (in this case David Lodge’s Nice Work); (ii) encouraging students to make historically informed readings of Blake’s poetry via use of the Oxford English Dictionary Online; (iii) and exploiting the ludic possibilities of online space via a ‘Twelfth Night Saturnalia Party’ in which students arrived and posted in character from any of the texts studied over the module. Colbert and Wilson had also tried an online exercise to help develop bibliographic and referencing skills, which they felt had been less successful. Might this be one area where well thought through online multiple choice questions could be a helpful addition to the ways that we teach students how to reference accurately? Christina Lee (Nottingham) spoke on using WebCT to support the teaching of Viking Studies in ‘Virtual Vikings: Using a VLE to Run a Team-Taught Module’. Viking Studies is compulsory at Nottingham but frequently students arrive with no necessary understanding of grammar, history or Christian context. The VLE offers a means of providing background information and self-assessment activities, such as multiple choice questions on grammar, audio clips of Old Norse and even Old English crosswords! She also reiterated a point which will be familiar to many of us: namely that students need guidance and training in discerning useful and scholarly websites, and feedback can be given to students on this via the VLE. A second-year module on Viking culture and history utilised the VLE for virtual seminars alongside conventional weekly lectures. The VLE was used to assemble study topics and the students researched one a week. The module also included a ‘Viking Masterclass’ whereby the class took part in a chatroom encounter (in ‘real’ as opposed to asynchronous time) with a noted scholar. This ‘live link’ captured students’ imaginations and encouraged ambition. On a joint MA with the University of Oslo students were also able to use the VLE to ‘buddy up’ with a counterpart from the associated institution, fostering friendships and online community.
Lee did not assess online discussion but made clear that expectations of involvement must be set early on. The advantages of not assessing were that students have a freedom to develop online and the chance to catch up if necessary. Her conclusion was that the worst thing you can do with a VLE is set it up and then ignore it, supposedly leaving the students to ‘get on with it’ (they won’t). Monitored, it’s a great tool for deep learning and retention.
This last point led seamlessly into Matt Green’s (Nottingham) presentation on ‘Effective and Efficient Management of Discussion Boards’. Green’s e-moderator role was very much influenced by how he structured and integrated the use of the VLE into his course. He used Discussion Boards for pre-seminar discussion and then brought some of the issues raised on the Board into the seminar classroom for use alongside further face-to-face debate on a topic. The face-to-face teaching then formed the basis for postseminar postings. He had also developed an interesting way of splicing together student posts with fragments of other texts – the example given ranged from Zizek to Blake to Hamlet to Benjamin – as a means of re-contextualising students’ comments into wider frames of reference. Used in a session on ‘Modernism and fragmentation’ this seemed a particularly
developed a good e-moderator ‘tone’ which was not too formal, yet still rich in content. He raised the question of what makes a good e-tutor, and stressed the importance of modelling to students how to ‘behave’ online via tutor example. Other tips included:
• Be consistent in your moderation across groups. Students don’t like seeing differential treatment. • Give encouraging feedback. • Summarise threads at the end of an exercise. • Bring the VLE posts ‘into the classroom’. This encourages the VLE work to be seen by the students as integrated with other forms of contact and teaching. • Be clear about what the students can expect from you as an e-moderator (and what they can’t). • Incorporate VLE preparation time into seminar preparation time. • Reply to messages in a group format, rather than to individual students.
Heather Conboy and Kathleen Bell (De Montfort) introduced Creative Writing into the mix via ‘Towards Assessment: Discussion Boards as a Tool in Drafting and Reflective Writing’. On a first-year module students were invited to post an example of their creative writing and to provide comment and feedback to their peers’ work. Student feedback suggested that the class valued this opportunity for additional input on their writing, alongside the face-to-face feedback they got in the classroom. One student said they were soon “addicted” to posting! The Discussion Board allowed for anonymous postings, which on occasion helped students to contribute when otherwise they might not have done. Feedback such as “More people on the course needed to use it, but when used it was very useful” reflect the ‘critical mass’ issue with Boards/ Forums: a momentum is gained when students know lots of the class are posting.
Conboy and Bell received very little negative feedback from students regarding the use of Blackboard. However, one student who hadn’t used it said they were “too scared” to do so. This may have been an anxiety about his/her being able to find one’s way around the VLE, or an issue of confidence in relation to one’s postings being visible to others. As e-moderators we can only try to provide as clear and student-proof instructions as we can for online tasks, and we can also remind the class (repeatedly if necessary) that everyone has valuable comments to contribute. Conboy and Bell also commented that in their ‘blended’ use of VLEs (i.e. VLE use alongside face-to-face teaching) “students view the Discussion Board mainly in the light of how it fits in and helps with other elements of the module, such as their workshops and assessments and other contacts with the tutor and institution”.
Probably the most controversial part of the day centred around the question of assessment in relation to VLE work. In ‘Push Me, Pull Me, the Hybrid Nature of VLE Discussions’ Gail Ashton (Manchester) suggested that there are two approaches tutors can have to the use of Forums/ Boards. If VLE use is assessed then this ‘pushes’ the students to take part; if it isn’t then the students are ‘pulled’, or more freely drawn to participate. Ashton highlighted one student comment on Discussion Boards where the student felt that the Board was being “watched from above by the teaching elite” and that this impeded the exchange of ideas. The student also raised concerns about everyone “want[ing] to appear clever” in their posts. Ashton thus felt that students want Boards/Forums that are open and exploratory, a platform for sharing resources and ideas and that students want a sense of ownership in relation to the Board. This largely means no assessment.
Ashton also raised the question of the nature of online discussion. What relationship does it have to discussion in ‘real life’? Online discussion can tend to be less formal: posts may well be ‘off task’ and digressive. Whilst this may help in terms of social bonding it can also become incoherent, and will make it difficult to assess. Asynchronous postings are also unlike a face-to-face discussion; there is thus discontinuity in the development of thought and mini-essay chunks of post lack the spontaneity and freedom of conversation. Ashton’s conclusions were that for the ‘pull’ approach to work – i.e. no assessment – then a number of skills were needed in terms of setting up a VLE: creativity, reflection, investment in learning, possibly peer assessment, and the involving of students in the design of the online activities.
My own presentation followed this with ‘Some Issues in Assessing Online Discussion: Staff and Student Perspectives’ and presented some of the data I had collected from four different cohorts using VLEs on my modules via a detailed questionnaire on their responses to online work. General support for an online component ranged from 73-92% of respondents. My first use of a Discussion Forum was during a four-week experiment on a module and this wasn’t assessed. When this group were asked whether online work should be assessed 57% said no, and 38% said yes. The following year, two cohorts experienced an online component that comprised 10% of the overall marks for the course. When these groups were asked about assessment 67% and 88% respectively were in favour and 13% and 8% were against (the rest were ‘not sure’). The leap from 38% to much higher figures of support is not hard to understand: if students are doing the work then they want due credit for it. One student comment – “I enjoyed it, but it’s an awful lot of work for 10%” – was indicative of others from these two groups and led me to increase the weighting to 40% for the next year. When this cohort were asked whether online work should be assessed 58% said yes and 25% no (the rest ‘not sure’). However, when this latter group were asked how much online work was ‘worth’, 45% (the largest single response) agreed that a 40% weighting was ‘about right’. Thirty-seven percent thought it should be 25-30%. Nine percent thought it should be more than 40%.
I also suggested a number of positive reasons for assessing online work:(4) • It ensures full class participation. • Students are being rewarded for the effort they put in and this means they take it seriously. • It can be used as a form of low level continuous assessment across a course, ensuring engagement with a wider range of texts, in more depth, than otherwise. • It’s a way of extending the classroom into a virtual seminar, allowing more time for the development of ideas and quality of reflection. • It’s a way of ‘hearing’ the quieter students, some of whom may really flourish online.
Having shared the assessment criteria I had used in relation to Discussion Forum work I concluded by encouraging people to take risks and be bold in terms of thinking how courses need to be put together if they are to integrate online work, including assessing it.
The Conference concluded with a plenary session led by Lesley Coote (Hull). Are VLEs a means of Foucauldian surveillance or ludic play spaces? Why do we use them? Because they’re there? If we were creating a VLE platform from scratch what would we want it to look like and be and do? Can Discussion Boards be used with other media – e.g. interactive whiteboards? What is the right balance between ‘virtual’ and ‘actual’ contact for student groups? Responses to these questions are many and varied, and what the day made clear is that there is a healthy exchange of ideas going on in the subject about how VLEs can be used within English Studies. We don’t all agree with each other, but it’s undoubtedly the case that there are some highly imaginative and innovative uses of VLEs and Discussion Boards/Forums taking place. No one who presented suggested that online work should replace or do away with face-to-face teaching; all the examples integrated VLE use into their courses alongside more traditional modes of learning.
For me, becoming involved in e-learning has been another way of developing myself as a teacher. When I was first forced to instigate some ‘technology supported learning’ several years ago as part of a PGCertHE I never thought that I – or my students – might actually enjoy it. I didn’t realise that using a VLE would lead me to think about my courses and how I taught them in new ways, to pedagogic research, and to seeing other aspects of my students’ abilities that didn’t necessarily always reveal themselves either in the classroom or on paper in essays or exams. The ‘Creating and Assessing Discussion Forums’ day demonstrated that there are a growing number of English lecturers who have discovered how VLEs can enhance what they do as teachers. And a fair number of students think that using a VLE as part of their English courses is beneficial too. I conclude with a student response to the question ‘what does using a VLE and Discussion Forum add to the study of English?’
“It stimulates collegiate spirit. It has given me a broader understanding and appreciation of my fellow students’ views, which I may otherwise not have heard, and has raised issues which otherwise may not have been raised. It has encouraged me to further research new areas of the subject as a result of some of the points made by my classmates online.”
Author’s Note
Many thanks to Hilary Weeks and Lesley Coote for their note-taking during the conference. It was a great help in the writing of this report.
Notes
- Andrew Shail, ‘Blackboard can kiss my …’, English Subject Centre Newsletter, Issue 10, June 2006, 35.
- Shail is probably reflecting a widespread Subject perception when he states that “There are no rewards for doing e-learning”. However, it is likely that institutional Teaching and Learning committees will be interested, and if institutions have money available to support teaching innovation then e-learning developments would surely be eligible. The English Subject Centre is also currently supporting six E-Learning Advocates within English departments across the country and has funded a number of e-learning related projects. It is also now possible to submit a pedagogically-oriented item as part of one’s RAE return. I hope the rest of this report demonstrates that “Beyond an archival function … there are no immediately apparent uses for e-learning in the humanities” is an unsustainable view. In respect of “Students will by and large not use a virtual learning environment unless they are assessed in doing so, and they will use it unimaginatively if their participation is assessed”, I broadly agree with the first part of this, but not the latter. I hope that the presentation I gave at ‘Interfaces’, where I spoke about the work my own students had been doing using a VLE – all assessed – suggested that imaginative engagement and assessment are not mutually exclusive terms in relation to online work. Shail’s final point, that there is “little … theorising of what function [VLEs] can actually perform in relation to face-to-face teaching” is also somewhat belied by the rest of this report below. There is an increasing body of literature on ‘blended’ learning, where face-to-face and online methods of teaching work alongside each other. See, for example, Janet MacDonald’s Blended Learning and Online Tutoring: A Good Practice Guide (Aldershot: Gower, 2006).
- This is a point that my colleagues and I have argued in more detail in a recent article. See Benjamin Colbert, Rosie Miles and Francis Wilson, with Hilary Weeks, ‘Designing and Assessing Online Learning in English Literary Studies’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 6: 1 (February 2007), pp. 74-90.
- Diana Laurillard also makes the point that “The only real test of any learning material is its use under normal course conditions. This means it must be integrated with other methods, the teacher must build on the work done and follow it through, and most important, the work students do with ICT media must be assessed”. See Rethinking University Teaching (2002, 2nd ed), p. 205.
