I’ve chosen two tools for my course and Learning Management System (LMS): Skype and blog-style WebCT Vista discussion forums.

Anderson talks about interactivity having “always” been valued in distance education, and interactivity is something that both of these tools bring (2008). But each of them brings something a little different to the table.

Skype
Skype is an (mostly) synchronous communications technology that is more multi-faceted and dimensioned than is apparent at first glance. It supports synchronous video and audio, synchronous audio only, synchronous chat, and asynchronous chat. At the same time, students and instructors can exchange files, share desktops, play social games via the Skype game channel, and more. Plus, both audio/video and audio only discussions can be supplemented through simultaneous textual transmission via chat. As such, it’s a rich communications medium (media?) that supports a wide range of connectivity speeds: low to high.

The main reason I’m using Skype in my course is for the immediacy of interaction between instructor and student, and student and student. As Pan and Sullivan report, Skype enabled “just-in-time” information. More than that, however, it offers a highly personal connection (2005) which can serve to build relationships and foster affinity and identification … and that’s an integral part of stimulating a community of learners in a community of learning.

Skype does have some limitations:

1. Individuals with high-speed connections to the internet can use full audio-visual capabilities; but others can only use audio, or potentially even only chat.
2. Students may have a high-speed connection, but not a microphone and/or webcam that would enable rich audio-visual communication. Without these, they will be limited to text-only communications.
3. Some students may be accessing the course on a employer or school-provided computer on which they do not install privileges … and therefore cannot install the software. In some cases they may be able to request its installation, but in many cases corporate IT groups will resist installation of any third-party software (particularly internet communication software).
4. Differently-abled students may not find visual or audio communication of any use. In this case, most of the functionality of Skype would be of little benefit.
5. Most conversation in Skype (chat aside, which is logged and can be searched, copied, and transcribed) is ephemeral and once said, is lost.
6. And the biggest limitation, potentially, from a pedagogical point of view is that Skype is predominantly designed for and is most useful at synchronous communications. This requires two or more parties being available at the same time, and may render communication difficult for some – particularly those in distant time zones or with unusual schedules.

(Note: Skype is linked to in the Web Links for the course, and referenced in the course announcements.)

Discussion Forums
I’ve also chosen to use WebCT’s discussion forum technology, but in a slightly different way. Rather than simply using them as discussion boards, which tend to privilege divergent discussions on many different topics or viewpoints, I’m employing the blog-style discussion forums in an attempt to make the discussions more convergent. The goal is that in contributing, students add something to the gestalt of opinions and points on any given topic and thereby delve deep into a specific aspect of the topic rather than skirt around many issues on a more surface level.

(Note: this should not be taken as an opinion that this is a qualitatively better or more appropriate method than standard forums; it is simply an alternate method in an attempt to arrive at a different educational result.)

There’s little doubt that discussion forums can enhance learning (Andresen, 2009). The learning goal here is to provide asynchronous opportunity for students to present opinions and information on topics of common interest in a way that offers as much reflection and consideration time as students require … and preserves the conversation and information for others to see later (or even for students’ to revisit their own thoughts and ideas). This is a social construction of knowledge that becomes permanent or at least semi-permanent record.

Course forums, of course, have their own limitations:

1. Students who learn better in more audio and visual media may have a harder time reading, responding, and learning in simple text.
2. Divorcing conversations of non-verbal as well as non-vocal clues runs risks of misunderstandings and potential conflict … or even more surface, casual engagement. As such, developing a community feeling may be more difficult.
3. Forums – particularly those in password-protected courses – are situated in a virtual locale that is not necessarily on the beaten path for most students. Where a tool like Skype can potentially be a background technology (always available, always on), a forum is in a particular location that must be specifically visited, As such, it is potentially not as convenient or integrated into students’ daily use of technology.
4. Related to the previous point, WebCT forums are very rooted, non-portable, non-mashable (in the web2.0 sense). They, for instance, lack RSS feeds that students could set up to follow discussions. In this sense, WebCT forums are ancient technology that is not abstractable from a specific context.

(Note: the forums are set up and running in my demo WebCT course.)

---

References:

Anderson, T. (2008). Teaching in an Online Learning Context. In: Anderson, T. & Elloumi, F. Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University. Accessed online 14 June, 2009 http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/14_Anderson_2008_Anderson-DeliveryQualitySupport.pdf

Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous Discussion Forums: Success Factors, Outcomes, Assessments, and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, v12 n1 p249-257 2009.

Pan, C. & Sullivan, M. (2005). Promoting Synchronous Interaction in an eLearning Environment. T.H.E. Journal, v33 n2 p27-30 Sep 2005.