F2F vs. online chat for learning
I’ve been reading up on studies of how communication is altered, for better or worse, when moving from face to face dialogue to various digital modes.
I don’t take the seemingly standard view that all online communication should be identified as being significantly worse than face to face dialogue.
It’s a wide ranging area, and the technologies vary hugely in their abilities. If we compare f2f with simple text based communication there are clear differences than if we compare it to say, video conferencing. These differences impact communication both in ways that I think can be measured and others that are more about user perception.
It is worth pointing out that the classroom practice examples I have been looking at used online chat (in various forms) in addition to face to face sessions, not as a direct replacement. Using online chat as an enhancement rather than a replacement doesn’t remove the issues I discuss below, but does make them less significant. If, as seems most likely, blended learning is the approach that schools take rather than delivering content entirely online this is going to help course designers a lot.
The most commonly raised issue surrounding text based chat when discussing it with educators seems to be what is lost. Removing the face to face element takes out the important factors of facial expression and body language, and tone is lost from what is being said. Text chat does make use of other methods to attempt to counter this- it is common to see exaggerated punctuation, and emoticons play a large part for example.
Emoticons are an interesting area. At the simple level they are considered to replace facial expressions, but there is more to it than that. The most striking difference for me is about intent. Whereas your facial expressions are not always intentional, use of an emoticon during text based chat is a considered act. This shouldn’t automatically be seen as a negative, but it should be highlighted as a difference. Loads more on this in Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: Emoticons and Illocutionary Force. Really interesting article.
Web based discussion impacts on the natural flow of conversation you experience. Even using synchronous online discussion tools the usual turn-taking flow of a conversation is altered (Herring, S. 2010). This doesn’t just apply to text based communication- anybody who has participated in group audio or video chat will have noticed how much harder it is to work out if it is your turn to speak, or how the gaps between speakers tend to be a little longer than with a group sharing the same physical space.
While this produces a different flow compared to face to face discussion, again it is not always bad. The opportunities it presents could allow a wider ranging conversation to take place, or perhaps enable a greater degree of reflection if the pace is slower?
Moving to the asynchronous, Meyer noted that threaded conversation allows students more control over the discussion path whereas a face to face discussion can often switch topics before a student is ready to move on. Different flow, positive outcome.
The implications of language should be mentioned here too. It is important for students to have strong writing skills to enable them to communicate their ideas effectively in text based chat. In addition to the straight forward language barriers, while I haven’t looked into it in a great deal I can appreciate that writing style will vary between countries and cultures, and therefore impact on discussion.
The permanent record of conversation that remains afterwards can be a good thing. The learning that took place in a discussion board still exists, and can be referred back to by the students as part of the reflection process. We see this pattern within our own forums- initial unresearched responses start the dialogue, students go away to look at other articles, finding new questions and answers along the way. This seems to be evidence of higher level thinking taking place in the environment.
That record also helps remove time as a significant factor from the discussion, allowing a larger group to participate at a time convenient to them. Online discussion requires a marked expansion of the time devoted to a particular class and its material (Meyer, 2003), but with a motivated student group and a strong technical set-up gaining time definitely has positive implications for a course. Good for distance learning courses, but also good for schools looking to encourage their students into studying during their free time.
The history of an online discussion also produces a set of reading for others studying the topic in the future. As a learner would looking at the discussion students had on a topic from a previous year help your understanding? Quite possibly. As a teacher would looking at how the learning panned out in a previous class on the same topic help you design your lessons? Probably. This is something that can’t easily be replicated in a face to face discussion in a classroom setting.
Another positive I wanted to cover was about confidence.
“Many researchers note that students perceive online discussion as more equitable and more democratic than traditional classroom discussions” (Swan, K, Shea, P et al, 2000)
It seems that the online environment helps less confident students join the discussion. In the case of more public discussion the content of the response is often more considered and “students consider language structure somewhat more” (Godwin Jones, R. 2003). The suggestion being if you know the audience for your thoughts is large you are more careful about how you present them. Any of us that blog will know this to be true.
For asynchronous chat there is a positive for non-native speakers too, the process allowing more time to consider and prepare answers than in a live classroom situation.
It is also worth mentioning that all the issues mentioned here also apply to the tutor delivering the course. I’m going to separate off my thoughts about monitoring/moderating online chat into another post, but as much care should be taking designing the experience for the tutors as the students. I don’t want to poke the digital native beast just yet, but we should certainly think about whether our teachers are given enough support to build their confidence in an online environment?
Not only did Johnson and co come up with a catchy title in Comparative Analysis of Learner Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in Online and Face-to-Face Learning Environments (Johnson, S, Aragon, S, Shaik, N. 2000), but their research demonstrated that-
“while student satisfaction with a face to face course was marginally higher, there was no difference in the quality of learning that took place.”
This, for me is the most important point here. If we’re just about learning then it seems a simple argument for using the technology as part of the process. The value of ‘student satisfaction’ is so subjective it makes it much harder to measure though. My feeling is that with the correct course design this could be evened out too. It crops up again and again, but it’s all about the correct tools for the job.
There is far more detail (and evidence to back it up…) in the paper and those listed below than my brief ramblings here so do have a read if this is your area. But, in short my reading seems to demonstrate that with the correct course design the issues surrounding text based communication shouldn’t have a negative impact on learning outcomes.
Links to all the articles on this subject and from other parts of the course are also all in my Delicious feed.