网范文：“CMC as a support for course related discussion in a campus university setting” 重视计算机辅助学习和电脑中介沟通(CMC), 其机构不断增加。人们越来越认为,为了就业,所有的大学必须增强竞争力,基于它的在线学习。这篇教育范文讨论了这一问题，英语论文范文，这意味着角色扮演的教职员工和学生对于改变的过程。罗森伯格表明,互动和虚拟网络教育的本质是将教师的传统角色转换为信息和知识的促进者。里尔也认为,这项技术会导致教师转变角色。
导师的任务在于构建具有挑战性的对话,而不是引导学生专业技能和知识的学习。这些论点似乎暗示在学习者学习和教师教的方式的转换。下面的范文进行详述。
Introduction
With institutions putting an ever-increasing emphasis on computer-assisted learning and computer-mediated communication (CMC), place and space for face to face is in danger of being ousted from the timetable. It is increasingly argued that, to survive, all universities will have to cross the e-line into internationally competitive, IT- based online learning (eg. Oblinger, 1999). Such a move implies change in the process of learning and in the roles played by both staff and students within universities and other HE institutions.
Rosenberg (1999) suggests that the interactive and virtual nature of online education is transforming the traditional role of the teacher into that of information and knowledge facilitator and technical integrator. Riel (1995) has likewise argued that the technology leads to a shift in role for the tutor, from being controller of information to intellectual leader. The tutors task becomes that of structuring challenging conversations among a community of learners rather than channelling expertise and knowledge to the student. These arguments seem almost to imply that there is something inherent in the medium which will bring about a transformation in the way in which learners learn and teachers teach.
However, against this it can be argued that the use of computers does not in itself assure a rich, interactive exchange of ideas. On the contrary, CMC can be passive, didactic, competitive...and other directed. (McCabe, 1998). Conversely, the lecture theatre does not have to be a passive environment. Although lectures have not traditionally been very interactive there is intrinsically little to stop them being so (Race & Brown, 1998). It may therefore be argued that successful learning outcomes have as much to do with the individual pedagogic style, approach and assumptions of tutors as the affordances of the teaching/learning medium (Light, Nesbitt, Light, & White, in press).
Many of the key social skills needed for nurturing online collaboration are not specific to the CMC environment. Rather they are the skills needed by any tutor, facilitator...involved in any peer learning situation (Kaye ) . Some tutors will be better than others in designing and implementing group learning experiences. Harasim Hiltz, Teles and Turoff (1995) suggests that those who find themselves comfortable with the basic premises of peer learning and small group work (in the face to face situation) will adapt well to the CMC environment.
Provision of CMC course support resources does not necessarily equate with uptake. Typically the tutor not only has to make the CMC resources available to students but also has to sell their usefulness and potential before learners will take advantage of them. Crook (1997) s on students use of hypertext lecture notes, which were supported by a bulletin board and email facility designed to facilitate interaction and questioning in relation to the notes. He found that although the students read the notes and regarded them as a valuable resource, none used the bulletin board for discussion and few used the email launcher. Also, rather than navigating the hypertext notes, most students printed out a hard copy of lecture notes to take away for private study later.
These observations suggest that interactivity rarely occurs spontaneously, even in a well supported CMC environment. Rather, it usually requires a facilitator to engineer and maintain it. This facilitator is usually the tutor, whose task is to create a context within which there can be shared goals, interests and commitments (Kaye, ). Inevitably, the direct engagement of tutors is likely to influence the kind of discussion that takes place. Even where tutors are wholly absent from the CMC discussion, the way in which they have framed the activity may be a significant factor influencing the course of discussion. Light, Nesbitt, Light & Burns (2017) describe a case in which the tutor was absent from CMC-based discussions taking place in parallel groups of students. The style of contribution was relaxed and linguistically varied. However, there were also instances of flaming, when selected participants were personally targeted with offensive messages. Such instances can have a very disruptive effect on the whole group, and prejudice the likelihood of useful learning outcomes.
The relationship between the CMC resource and other available learning resources is important, as is the relation of all learning resources to the curriculum and assessment of the course. The CMC element has to be embedded in the whole course rather than being merely an add-on. A structure needs to be in place which, in Gilberts (1995) words, successfully initiates connections among people who want to learn, people who want to teach, and the world of information and ideas.
Skywriting
The study ed here shows how one tutor teaching psychology undergraduate students in a campus-based university set about such a task and reviews the outcomes from both the tutors and the students perspective. Earlier research (Light, Colbourn & Light, 1997; Light & Light, 1999) with the same cohort of students meant that the researchers had data from students who had been in their first year and were now presently in their third, thus providing a relatively rich context for the study.
The tutor in this study developed a form of CMC that he called skywriting (Harnad 1990, 1995, 1999). He used it as an adjunct to all of his courses, including the three courses described in this . The three courses in question, one in the first year and two in the third year, ran for one semester each and were taught by the same tutor. The first year course was a lecture- and tutorial-based course for the whole cohort of students. The two third year courses took place in successive semesters. The first semester course was a seminar- based optional course, while the second semester course was a lecture-based course for the whole cohort. Skywriting was an integral part of each course; contributions being required but not directly assessed.
Skywriting involved all messages going to a course email list that included all students and the tutor. As well as receiving all messages directly, participants could access them via the Internet, where the tutor archived them using Hypermail at regular intervals. Accessed in this way, the messages could be sorted by author, date or (most usefully) thread. Students were encouraged to use a quote/comment procedure. To do this the students would save the text into a text file in a word processor and then select the lines of text they were going to comment on, using > quote/indents. URLs contained in messages became active hypertext links.
In guiding the students as to the style and level of contributions expected, the tutor used the analogy of a bright kid-sibling. Thus kid-sib was that kind of communication that would be required to satisy: that super-intelligent younger sibling you [are] meant to have in mind ...brilliant, fervently interested in finding out what youve learnt, but PLETELY ignorant about it, and with no patience at all when what you are saying doesnt make sense. Apart from academic postings, skywriting was also used to deliver administrative notices, technical tips, advice for exams and so on.
The study was conducted at a UK campus-based university. Almost all students were full time, residential students. Explaining the Mind was a lecture course taken by some 80 first year Psychology Honours students (plus 50 other students) in 1996. A full account of the use made of skywriting on this course is available in Light & Light (1999); a briefer account will be given here to contextualise the account of the same students use of skywriting in two of their third year courses.
Skywriting was offered as a supplement to the traditional structure of the course, namely two lectures a week and a fortnightly tutorial in groups of about ten. Students were encouraged to use skywriting to ask questions and to enter into debate with the tutor and fellow students about issues arising in the lectures or tutorials.
Over three quarters of the students were straight from school, the remainder being mature students, mostly in their thirties. Three quarters were female. A questionnaire measure of attitudes to, and prior experience with, computers (based on Davis & Cole, 1993) was administered to all students on entry to the Psychology programme. There was an overall gender difference in self-ed experience (favouring males), but attitudes to computers were positive in both groups. A complete round of tutorials was observed and tape-recorded from which a measure of the frequency of unsolicited verbal contributions by students was obtained. Male students, though a minority, made on average more than twice as many such contributions as female students.
网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文作品权归所有；未经官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯作品权现象，英语论文网站，保留一切法学追诉权。
更多范文欢迎访问我们主页 当然有需求可以和我们 联系交流。-X
|
