Moderating Educational Computer Conferences

Published in Berge, Z. L. & Collins, M. P. (Eds.).(1995). Computer-mediatedcommunication and the on-line classroom in Distance Education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Used by permission of the Publisher.

Morten Flate Paulsen, NKI College of Computer Science, Oslo, Norway

Some conferences possess an energy that encourages active participation, while others, apparently designed to facilitate discussion of equally relevant and interesting topics, seem to spit and sputter, with minor flurries of activity and little of value to offer to the participant.... The important thing to remember is that a flexible approach to moderation is a key element in the creation of an energetic conferencing environment. (Brochet, 1989,p. 6.02-6.03)

This introductory quote, which was found in a report from a closed conference on moderating computer conferences, expresses the importance of the moderator's approach to computer conferencing. Supporting this notion, there are many more articles that discuss moderation of educational computer conference courses (for example, Davie, 1989; Eisley, 1991; Feenberg, 1989a, 1989b,1991; Hiltz, 1988; Kerr, 1986; Mason, 1991). A review of these articles reveals a host of experiences and advice with regard to moderator roles and facilitation techniques for educational computer conferences. They are, however, generally based on personal experiences in specific contexts and may or may not generalize to other moderators in different contexts. So, rather than professing general guidelines for the moderation of educational computer conferences, this chapter recommends that moderators should identify their preferred pedagogical styles, based on their philosophical orientation, their chosen moderator roles, and their preferred facilitation techniques. Hence, the reviewed material is organized and discussed with regard to a moderator's pedagogical style.

The interpretation of pedagogical style, though, is more complex thanConti's (1991) perception of teaching style. Using the Principles of AdultLearning Scale (PALS), Conti (1991) may help moderators assess their teachingstyle. High PALS scores indicate support for a learner centered style, and low scores indicate a teacher-centered style. The scales comprise seven factors that are of importance to the teaching style. The factors relate to the teacher's attitudes toward learner-centered activities, personalizing instruction, relating to experience, assessing student needs, climate building, participation in the learning process, and flexibility for personal development.

In this chapter, pedagogical style is perceived as a multifaceted construct. It is suggested that the facets of special importance to the moderation of educational computer conferences are the moderator's philosophical orientation, the moderator's sense of their role, and the facilitation techniques applied by the moderator.

Philosophical orientation

The moderators' pedagogical styles are based on their philosophical orientations and theories toward education. Discussing adult education philosophies, Zinn (1991) distinguishes among liberal, behaviorist, progressive, humanistic, and radical philosophies. These and other philosophies in adult education are presented in selected writings edited by Merriam (1984) and Jarvis (1987). With regard to distance education, Keegan (1988) identifies three theoretical positions: those of autonomy and independence, industrialization, and interaction and communication. Discussing these theoretical positions, Paulsen (1992)presents "the Theory of Cooperative Freedom" which is a first attempt to establish a distance education theory attuned to computer-mediatedcommunication (CMC). So, summing up, moderators will perceive their role in educational computer conferencing in light of their basic theories and philosophies toward education.

Moderating Educational Computer Conferences 83

Moderator roles

Discussing group dynamics in general, Forsyth (1990, p. 112) classifies the moderator's roles into two basic functions: task roles and socio-emotional roles. In more detail and focusing on computer conferencing, Mason (1991)identifies three role functions that computer conferencing moderators mustpossess. These role functions are:

Organizational role:

One of the first duties of an online tutor is to set the agenda"for the conference: the objectives of the discussion, the timetable, procedural rules and decision-making norms. Managing the interactions with strong leadership and direction is considered a sine qua non of successful conferencing .. .

Social role:

Creating a friendly, social environment for learning is also seen as an essential moderator skill. Sending welcoming messages at the beginning and encouraging participation throughout are specific examples, but providing lots of feedback on student's inputs, and using a friendly, personal tone are considered equally important...

Intellectual role:

The most important role of the online tutor, of course, is that of educational facilitator. As in any kind of teaching, the moderator should focus discussions on crucial points, ask questions and probe responses to encourage students to expand and build on comments. (Mason, 1991)

Brochet (1989) stresses the importance of moderation to the success of computer conferencing and discusses the following six roles:

The goal setter, who makes plans for the conference and decides whether the plans should be changed during the conference

• The discriminator, who differentiates between useful and useless ideas.
• The host, who creates the feeling of trust and motivates contributions.
• The pace setter, who removes communication barriers and promotes cooperation.
• The explainer, who relays overlooked messages and raises questions that have remained unanswered.
• The entertainer, who evaluates the conference mood and ensures that participants are relaxed.

Additional roles could be classified as lecturer, tutor, facilitator, mediator, mentor, assistant, provocateur, observer, participant, and soon. Teachers often enact several roles throughout a course, and each of the roles will have some organizational, social, and intellectual elements as suggested in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1. Some Moderator Roles

FACILITATION TECHNIQUES

Addressing discussion in general, Brookfield (1991, p. 195) states that "discussion is by its very nature unpredictable." He elaborates on this through five components in his theory-in-use of discussion leadership:

Be wary of standardized approaches. Every discussion group comprises participants with different backgrounds, personalities, and learning styles. So, no standardized approach can be presumed to be appropriate for allgroups.

Use a diversity of approaches. Have a reservoir of questions and discussion leads at hand to personalize the discussion.

Welcome the unanticipated. Discussion is always unpredictable and moderators should be ready to depart from the general line of discussion to followup themes which arise unexpectedly.

Attend to the emotional dimension. Discussions can become competitive and emotional battlegrounds or highly personal fora for sharing of private thoughts. Moderators must be prepared to handle such charged situations.

Be authentic in the group. The most damaging mistakes moderators can make is to pretend to a personality they don't possess. It is far better for moderators to accept their personality and build on their inherent strengths.

A few authors (Eisley, 1991; Feenberg, 1989b; Hiltz, 1988) particularly discuss the moderation of educational computer conferences. In the following, their recommended facilitation techniques are compiled and organized according to three role functions: organizational, social, and intellectual. Several of the techniques may fit into more than one category, so the suggested categorization is meant to be a guide rather than a definite classification. Further, some of the statements presented here seem to contradict each other, and others seem to be redundant. They are, however, included to indicate the array of recommendations available.

With regard to the social function of distance education, Holmberg's theory of guided didactic conversation postulates that: "Feelings of personal relation between the teaching and the learning parties promote study pleasure and motivation" (1988, p. 115). When discussing facilitation techniques for educational computer conferences, however, authors tend to focus on the organizational function of the moderator role. One may infer that this is because the intellectual and social functions are less influenced by the medium than the organizational function. The following list of suggested facilitation techniques does demonstrate the preoccupation with the organizational function.

Organizational Facilitation

• Spur participation when it is lagging. Request, for example, direct comments and responses to the issues discussed.
• Require regular participation. To maintain an active dialogue, it is necessary to exhort students to log on at least twice a week. One feasible mechanism to handle this is the weekly quiz.
• Use response activities. The response activity feature of the EIES conferencing system was developed to force active participation. Here, each student must post a response to a question before access to the other answers is granted.
• Move misplaced content. Immediately move a contribution posted under a wrong discussion heading.
• Handle tangents appropriately. Refer inappropriate digressions to another conference, or guide the students back to the original topic.
• Vary participation. Ask the overly outspoken privately to wait a few responses before contributing. In the same way, ask less outspoken individuals to participate more actively, and call on specific individuals just as a teacher might call on a student in a traditional class.
• Occasionally have a student conduct the discussion. Students could take turns as assistant moderators.
• Give a decisive end to each discussion. Conclude discussions that dragon after they have served their purpose. Such discussions will distract from other topics on which students should focus.
• Invite visiting experts. Guest experts may join the conference, and students may be asked to present questions to the visitor.
• Be patient. Be prepared to wait several days for comments and responses, and don't rush in to fill every silence with moderator contributions.
• Don't overload. Post about one long comment a day. If the students have much to offer, the moderator should contribute less so that the slower participants can keep up.
• Read the status report daily. Don't let too many of the participants fall far behind.
• Don't lecture. Use open-ended remarks, examples, and weaving. An elaborate, logically coherent sequence of comments yields silence.
• Prompt frequently. Use private messages to urge participants to take part in the discussion, to initiate debates, and to solicit suggestions.
• Use simple assignments. Don't be apprehensive about presenting assignments to the group, but keep the threshold of participation low.
• Be clear. Begin with an opening comment that succinctly states the conference topic and the moderator's initial expectations and continue to clarify the topic and the expectations as the conference proceeds.
• Set up student interaction. Encourage participants to address each other as well as the moderator.
• Synchronize and resynchronize. Make sure everyone begins concurrently and not in disarray and offer periodic occasions to restart in unison.
• Remember the "law" of proportionality. Recall that faculty generally contribute about one-quarter to one-half of the online material.
• Take the procedural initiative. Avoid frustrating procedural discussions by providing groups with strong procedural leadership.

Social Facilitation

• Reinforce good discussant behaviors. Say, for example, "Thank You" to students who respond effectively online.
• Request change in poor discussant behaviors. Point out tactfully, forexample, that the class should be more directly responsive to each other'scomments.
• Hang loose. Don't present an elaborate seminar agenda at the outset, just follow the flow of the conversation, while guiding it toward the subject.
• Be responsive. Respond swiftly to every contribution either by postinga personal message to the
• Request meta-comments. Invite participants to tell how they feel about the course within the conference.

Intellectual Facilitation

• Summarize the discussion. If the discussion is an especially lengthy one, summarize occasionally.
• Write weaving comments. Summarize the state of the conference every week or two as a means of focusing discussion.
• Respond to student contributions and weave them together. It is not advisable to respond to each individual contribution; it is better then to respond to several at once by weaving them together. Do refer to students by name.
• Make the material relevant. The course material could be made more relevant by developing questions and assignments that relate to student experiences and current events.
• Present conflicting opinions. Conflicting opinions could be exposed through instructors with different backgrounds, debates, and peer critique.
• Request responses. The instructor may ask individual students to comment on specific issues that are relevant to their specific backgrounds.
• Simulate an agent provocateur. By using a pen name, instructors can question or challenge their own entries. This device could be used to setup a discussion or to set an example for student inquiries.

• Be objective. Don't generalize about a conference without considering the contributions with regard to contents, author, and time of announcement.
• Expect less. Be content if the moderator communicates two or three good major points in the course of a month of discussion.
• Don't rely on off-line materials. The discussion must be largely self-contained to succeed, so summarize assigned readings online.

Conclusion

There are several articles and papers presenting recommendations from experienced moderators of computer conferences. They are, however, mostly based on the personal experience of moderators in a specific context. This advice may or may not be relevant to other moderators in a different context. This review and analysis suggests that moderators should identify their preferred pedagogical styles, based on their philosophical orientation, chosen moderator roles, and preferred facilitation techniques. Finally,the chapter intends to help moderators identify their pedagogical styleby identifying some possible philosophies, roles, and facilitation techniques discussed in the literature.

References

Brochet, M. G. (1989). Effective moderation of computer conferences:Notes and suggestions. In M. G. Brochet (Ed.), Moderating conferences (pp.6.01-6.08). Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph.

Brookfield, S. D. (1991). Discussion. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adultlearning methods (pp. 187-204). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Conti, G. J. (1991). Identifying your teaching style. Malabar, FL: KriegerPublishing Company.

Davie, L. (1989). Facilitation techniques for the on-line tutor. In R.Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communications, computers, and distanceeducation (pp. 74-85). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Eisley, M. (1991). Guidelines for conducting instructional discussionson a computer conference. In A. J. Miller (Ed.), Applications of computerconferencing to teacher education and human resource development (pp 35-39).(Proceedings from an International Symposium on Computer Conferencing atthe Ohio State University, June 13-15.)

Feenberg, A. (1989a). The written world: On the theory and practice of

Moderating Educational Computer Conferences 89

computer conferencing. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communications, computers, and distance education (pp. 22-39). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Feenberg, A. (1989b). The planetary classroom: International applicationsof advanced communications to education. In E. Stefferud, O. J. Jacobsen,& P. Schicker (Eds.), Message handling systems and distributed applications(pp. 511-524). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Feenberg, A. (1991). CMC in executive education: The WBSI experience. In A. Fjuk, A. E. Jenssen, P. Helmersen, & M. Sy (Eds.), Nordisk konferanseom fjernundervisning, opplaring og dataformidlet kommunikasjon (pp. 95-100).(Proceedings from an International Conference at the University of Oslo,August 19-20.)

Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ColePublishing Company.

Hiltz, S. R. (1988). Teaching in a virtual classroom. In A virtual classroomon EIES: Final evaluation report (Vol. 2 ). Newark, NJ: New Jersey Institute of Technology.

Holmberg, B. (1988). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 114-122). London/New York: Routledge.

Jarvis, P. (Ed.). (1987). Twentieth century thinkers in adult education. London: Routledge.

Keegan, D. (1988). On defining distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan,& B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives(pp. 6-33). London: Routledge.

Kerr, E. B. (1986). Electronic leadership: A guide to moderating online conferences. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, 29(1), 12-18.

Mason, R. (1991). Moderating educational computer conferencing. DEOSNEWS,1(19). (Archived as DEOSNEWS 91-00011 on PSUVM.PSU.EDU)

Merriam, S. B. (Ed.). (1984). Selected writings on philosophy and adult education. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Paulsen, M. F. (1992). The hexagon of cooperative freedom: A distance education theory attuned to computer conferencing. In M. F. Paulsen (Ed.),From bulletin boards to electronic universities: Distance education, computer-mediated communication, and online education (pp. 56-64). University Park, PA: The American Center for the Study of Distance Education.

Zinn, L. M. (1991). Identifying your philosophical orientation. In M.W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods (pp. 39-77). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Topp Tilbake