Competent communicators: explaining an international communication exchange

Abstract

In times of profound social change, we need to find ways of managing the learning process. The case study discussed in this paper provides one example of a social and interactive form of learning. Prioritising pedagogical values of collaboration and communication, the model described provides for an international exchange of ideas, resources and viewpoints based on constructivist learning theory. From a small-scale project to one that now supports students from seven universities in the UK and the USA, this example shows how a simple idea can become an enjoyable and productive learning experience for students and staff alike.

Key words:

• collaboration
• communication
• e-learning
• international
• competencies
• interaction

Introduction

‘In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.’

(Hoffer 1978: 101)

As C-SAP prepares for a conference on the virtual university in 2009, few can now doubt or deny that education and communication systems are going through processes of profound change. Indeed, Dale Spender has suggested that we are witnessing the democratisation of authorship due to the internet (1998), and, since Russell’s now famous declaration of the ‘no significant difference phenomenon’ (Russell 1999), the question of whether e-learning can make a difference compared to traditional learning has also changed. We no longer focus exclusively on the comparison between distance and campus. Today, we have moved to consider how e-learning can make a difference to retention, sustainability, employability, managing large cohorts and enhancing the pedagogic design of the curriculum. Although we still differentiate between learning and e-learning (Joint Information Systems Committee [JISC] 2008), the past ten years have seen the mainstreaming of cyberspace activities, from checking emails and buying groceries from the online version of our favourite supermarket to listing friends on Facebook and dancing in Second Life. We should not wonder that our students expect some element of e-learning as part of the diet of their educational experience. It is through a notion of ‘added value’ that e-learning is now assessed in terms of its potential to innovate and enhance.

This article considers the use of technology to create learning opportunities that develop competencies whilst engaging the students in high-level thinking about their subject content. Once criticised by a fellow member of staff as a ‘dumbed-down, pen-pal excuse for a learning exercise’, this paper provides an overview of the pedagogic principles underpinning what has become the International E-communication Exchange, which has provided over 1,000 students with an international element to their undergraduate studies.

Developing competence

The notion of competence places a strong emphasis on abilities relating to information and communication technologies (ICT) and so Russell‘s original question can be refocused to ask whether e-learning can make a difference to support the development of competencies. The Bologna Declaration of June 1999 began a series of reforms to create a European higher education area by 2010:

The process originates from the recognition that in spite of their valuable differences, European higher education systems are facing common internal and external challenges related to the growth and diversification of higher education, the employability of graduates, the shortage of skills in key areas, the expansion of private and transnational education.

(http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna.pdf, accessed 11 July 2008)

Together with the Copenhagen Process, the aim is to ensure lifelong learning and social mobility which promotes ‘employability, active citizenship, social inclusion and personal development’ (http://ec.europa.eu/education/copenhagen/index_en.html).

In 2005, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Higher Education Academy and the JISC published a ‘strategy and implementation plan for supporting higher education institutions to develop and embed e-learning over the next 10 years’ (HEFCE Strategy for E-learning 2005), which points towards a future of mainstream acceptance of e-learning into the provision of higher education. Indeed, it has been argued that ‘Transformed institutions will have responded to the needs of the e-society driven by “Generation-Y” students […] and also up-skilled staff and innovated “behind the scenes” in order to transform departmental and institutional processes’ (JISC 2008: 9).

Recognition of competencies is at the heart of this process and can be defined as grounded in knowledge, skills and attitudes that enable individuals to react with spontaneity in uncertain contexts. Traditional distributive education with the ‘sage on the stage’ expert imparting wisdom is yielding to a more collaborative model of learning where e-learning is a useful tool in encouraging competence development (see Table 1).

Table 1: A comparison of distributive and collaborative learning models.

	Distributive	Collaborative
Teacher	Sage on the stage	Guide from the side
Student	Pupil	Apprentice
Knowledge	Transferred and stored	Exchanged and constructed
Learning model	Remembering, reproducing	Reflecting, putting into action
ICT	Used for distribution	Used for communication and collaboration
Assessment	Knowledge reproduction	Active participation
Learning outcome	Qualification	Competence

E-learning has been seen as an efficient mechanism to facilitate distributive learning, but distributive learning assumes too simple a pedagogy — a pedagogy that sees education as knowledge transfer. If education really was this simple, then the lecture would have been superseded by the printed book in the fifteenth century. Understanding e-learning as a two-way communicative mechanism allows for a collaborative approach. In comparing the two models, differences are evident in the role of the teacher, the student, the theory of knowledge, the learning model, the use of ICT, how students are assessed and the outcome of the learning experience.

Many advocates of distributive approaches to higher education argued that courses should be taught in fixed locations, with fixed timetables. However, the broadening geographic distribution of the student cohort demands flexible learning environments that fit with their work patterns, and the growth of ICT means that universities which do not embrace e-learning are in danger of being left behind as global competition increases.

Figure 1 shows how the eighteen- to twenty-year-old population declines after a peak in 2010–11. This age group will begin to decline significantly, reducing the traditional student target population and further challenging any university that refuses to engage with changing social forces.

Figure 1: Eighteen- to twenty-year-olds from 2006–7 to 2028—9. Source: Office for National Statistics and Government Actuary’s Department (2005 based projections, published in August 2006), adjusted by the Department for Education and Skills for academic years.

The virtual learning environment (VLE) in higher education has been seen variously as a boon to managing increased cohort sizes or ‘another thing to do’, depending on perspective. Many at the forefront of e-learning are already predicting the ‘Death of the VLE’ (Stiles 2007) but it was adopted by many as a distribution tool, placing documents and lecture notes onto the system for students to download. But the potential of the VLE is in collaboration and not as a mere ‘document dump’. VLEs cannot be treated as repositories we can send our lecture notes to and then run away for the semester. Building some element of communication into online collaborative work will help to meet the demands of modern employers for graduates with socio-communication competencies if we use VLEs for more than mere content distribution.

The International E-communication Exchange: a case history

The notion of online communication within a collaborative framework designed to enhance students. competencies was the starting point for what is now known as the International E-Communication Exchange (IEE). The origins of this innovation came out of focus-group work conducted with students at Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) in 2003 on why so few students took advantage of international exchange schemes for study. It came as little surprise to find that they were deterred by lack of money, domestic responsibilities, or both, which hampered their opportunities to travel.

Concern for this constraint on their learning opportunities stayed with me until one day in late spring 2004 when I decided to try to make contact with a university with a similar teaching and research focus as my own and to enquire about establishing a pilot project. I contacted a criminologist at the University of West Florida (UWF), Dr Julie Kunselman, who, together with another colleague from UWF (Dr Kathy Johnson) worked with me to design a small-scale pilot, planned for launch in the autumn semester of 2004. Together, we designed a six-week ‘insert’ project which could be used in any criminology/criminal justice programme to supplement the students. usual diet of lectures, seminars and associated study. The programmes followed by students in the UK and the USA had common themes, but they were not identical in content or presentation. The students’ only common experience was in relation to the project

The pilot was rolled out twice with feedback from students being incredibly positive. The design was simple: students were paired with a partner from the other university; email addresses for each pair were shared; and each week the tutor would email a topic that the students would be expected to discuss. At the end of the six-week process, students wrote a report on the process and attached examples of what they felt to be their ‘best’ email exchanges.

Some students thought the e-communication project would be an easy task, likening the process to a ‘pen-pal’ relationship. However, Student A described feelings of concern about the project: ‘My US partner and I started off with a brief email introduction so we could get an idea about each other and that took a bit of the fear away. Not wanting to show myself up I feel I.m doing more reading than I would normally.’ There was a clear indication that students felt they were representing their university (and maybe their country) and so had to work hard to do well: Student B emailed her instructor and signed off by saying ‘I have some “impressing” to do, and that means extra reading to prepare.’ The reality of this first stage of the model therefore went beyond the mere ‘getting to know you’ stage to a more structured approach to preparation (Jones et al. 2005: 167).

The two pilots had also provided a space for the academics involved to get to know each other on a ‘virtual’ basis, but we did not meet in reality until after both pilots had been completed: we were directly modelling what we expected our students to do in terms of online communication. After meeting in late 2005 at a conference (to give a joint paper which had been written by email exchange), we decided the next step was to see if the project was scaleable by inviting more partners into the scheme and moving from a simple email mechanism to a more sophisticated VLE basis (Jones et al. 2007). Three more universities in the USA joined in late 2005 (including the University of North Carolina Wilmington, who continue with us to this day), and, in the UK, the University of Brighton and Westminster University became partners with MMU and UWF. So it was, in 2006, that the project was transported to a WebCT platform and expanded to involve seven universities and a total of 375 students in the USA and UK. A grander project deserved a grander title, and so it was renamed the International E-Communication Exchange.

Describing the developed model

The IEE provides an alternative mechanism of learning and assessment to the traditional paradigm of lecture/seminar and essay/exam. No longer paired partners exchanging emails, the IEE consists of numerous learning sets, each comprising of a maximum of ten students. The first scaled-up IEE taught us that learning sets needed to be large enough to be sustainable if a couple of members are silent or absent but small enough to allow debate without ‘message overload’. The relationship between writing and the construction of meaning within the IEE is markedly different from that involved in constructing an essay as it is frequent, ongoing and more real to life, capturing ‘thinking in flight’ (Cowan and Crème 2007: 101). The act of writing has been described as a process of ‘knowing’, ‘a method of discovery and analysis. By writing in different ways, we discover new aspects of our topic and our relationship to it’ (Richardson 2000: 923). Most of our students will never write another essay after leaving university but they will need to communicate with confidence in online environments in many careers. Employers require graduates who are able to demonstrate a competency with ICT that goes beyond that of the school-leaver. This requires a professional ability to clearly articulate complex concepts in a concise and digestible form. In the IEE, students were:

required to read the messages posted by other students, giving them the opportunity to be reflective readers of each others’ work. Furthermore, students were reading and writing for a dual purpose: they were managing the competing demands of working towards an assessment and also responding to their fellow group members. To succeed individually they had to collaborate.

(Jones 2007)

The 2007 IEE welcomed another partner institution, California State University Fresno and secured funding from C-SAP to evaluate and develop the project. ¹ Further dissemination about the project was made through a number of conference papers, and the UK partnership was strengthened through being able to meet to develop the project further. A series of roadshows to further disseminate the model resulted in Glasgow Caledonian University becoming a partner in 2008.

A snapshot of the current position of the IEE shows that in 2008 a total of 488 students from seven universities (four in the UK and three in the USA) were registered for the exchange. The largest cohort was from Brighton (n = 154) and the smallest was from Glasgow Caledonian University (n = 18). The model used in the previous year was reproduced with students allocated to small discussion groups (average of ten students per group) and required to discuss three specific topics during the course of six weeks. The basic requirements were that two messages be posted each week, with each message consisting of not more than 300 words, as we are mindful of tutor and student overload in reading so many postings (Fox and MacKeogh 2003). Over 6,000 messages were posted but even the students who were not posting as many messages as others were gaining from the process as the VLE tracking function showed that postings from other students and resource materials were being read, podcasts were being listened to and videos of tutors were being watched, so it could be argued that they were having some form of (albeit limited) learning experience.

Assessment: dumbing down or challenging?

Assessment takes the form of a short reflective essay to which students attach their ‘best’ (self-judged) messages, one from each topic. You might assume that this is too easy and a form of dumbing-down: surely all students will score very highly on such an assessment? Assignment guidelines, marking criteria and intended learning outcomes are all clearly identified in the paper-based student handbook and in online guidelines. However, a range of abilities emerges, and the assessment grades range from a lowly 10 per cent (where there was a gulf between the claims made by the student in the essay and the actual level of participation) to a respectable 74 per cent (see Figure 2). The key question is whether marking is fair in ensuring that marks awarded reflect the standard appropriate to the level of the module.

Figure 2: Grade bands for MMU students (n = 69)

In fact, there was little difference in grades for this assessment compared to other assessments taken by this cohort of students which confirms Russell’s findings mentioned earlier (1999). This should be seen as a positive aspect and one which can usefully counter any criticism that a communication project is ‘dumbing down’ educational quality. Feedback from students consistently makes mention of the demanding nature of the project. Transparent assessment criteria, together with a reflective essay, which takes the form of a self-assessment tool (Cowan and Crème 2007), means that when students receive their grade, it comes as no surprise, and the feedback usually mirrors what the students have said about their own performance. Students learn from the experience, even if they fail: ‘engaging students in identifying their own assessment criteria is helpful because it gives them ownership. Establishing what the criteria should be early on means that everyone is clear about what is being judged’ (Times Higher Education, 27 March 2008).

The IEE model shows the interrelation between knowledge, skills and action. It encourages students to ‘become a critical thinker […] to engage in critical thought with her peers and colleagues within the discipline, as well as recognise the relativity of knowledge’ (Brockbank and McGill 1998: 53). Students reflect on their own knowledge base, often challenging their own assumptions and beliefs and reading further on the specified topics to be sure that the message they post is seen as credible by their peers. Learning is often partial because the tendency is to seek out information that supports our own viewpoint. This model took students out of that comfort zone and demanded that they challenge themselves as well as others. Their ICT skills, which are enhanced through the IEE, are a fortunate by-product of a wider set of critical thinking skills and communication competencies set within an international framework.

Conclusion

Of course such a model cannot suit all students, but no one ever said that the lecture/seminar, essay/exam model was perfect either. There is no single suitable paradigm for learning. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. What is important is that we make space within our curricula to offer forms of learning and assessment which are more suited to the student of the twenty-first century. The IEE is a social and interactive form of learning which aims to support the development of different competencies. The student learns together with others within a small online learning set in mutual discussion of a topic. In the IEE model, the structure provides for an international exchange of ideas, resources and viewpoints based on constructivist learning theory which requires active engagement, collaboration, time management and self-organisation. Communicative learning is supported by this e-learning model to create opportunities for authentic learning through social interaction. It is not merely a ‘pen-pal excuse for learning’ but a rich and imaginative form of learning.

The author

Helen Jones is a teacher, researcher, writer and activist. She has taught in universities in the UK and the USA and is currently employed at MMU, where she teaches on a range of criminology and criminal-justice topics. As well as researching on pedagogy, her interests include the issue of gendered violence and she is a co-author of the book Rape Crisis: Responding to Sexual Violence.

Notes

1. For full report, see http://www.c-sap.bham.ac.uk/resources/project_reports/findings/ShowFinding.htm?id=30/C/06.