Section 3

Lessons for online teachers

3.1 Methods

 The methods used to collect the data for section 3 were as follows:

• Contributions to the online discussion space in all Virtual Heads and Bursars communities
• Interpretative analysis of NPQH hotseats
• Interpretative analysis of a selection of online discussions
• Face to face meetings with NPQH and Bursars online teachers
• Informal interviews with teachers and learners
• A semi-structured telephone survey of NPQH learners carried out in July 2001
• Case studies undertaken with learners and teachers in May - June 2002

 This is consistent with the research methodology outlined in section 1.

3.2 Participation and Engagement

As outlined in section 1 the key to success in any learning activity is the engagement of the learners in the community and their active participation in the dialogue. In a face-to-face context, this can be seen in attendance at seminars and tutorials and in the submission of material for assessment at the end of each unit or module. Online, the learner has to be visible if participation is to be confirmed and this may lead to tensions between the self directed learner for whom the online environment does not fit their preferred learning style and the need for the online teacher to ensure the learner is present. The online teacher, therefore, needs to design activities and tasks that encourage contribution and response. Evidence shows that in social communities, without the imperative of assessment and qualifications, participation rates are around 6-10% (Wenger, 1998). This low rate is clearly inadequate to sustain a model of social and constructivist learning, which requires not only engagement but also active participation. ULTRALAB have found that if the philosophy of the programme continually reflects participation and collaboration (see section 1) then it is more likely to engender increased participation. Key to maximising this participation is the role played by the online teachers.

This section 3 outlines the findings for online teachers, which documents the successful processes online teachers are engaged in to enhance learning. Section 4 outlines the evidence of learning for online learners from the NPQH programme.

3.3 Findings for Online Teachers

The key role for the online teacher is to enable learning through the participation of learners in the online community. Two barriers may be perceived as inhibiting their effectiveness: technical and pedagogical barriers. ULTRALAB's experience is that technical barriers can be quickly overcome in most cases and are only temporary inhibitors.

Overcoming pedagogical barriers and adapting style and philosophy to the online environment is more complex. Most online teachers will be transferring their knowledge of teaching to the online context for the first time. A long history of being both taught and teaching in a face-to-face context makes this a familiar learning context. Few have any previous experience of being a learner or teacher online.

ULTRALAB has identified a number of strategies to be employed by online teachers that encourage the participation of learners in an online environment.

3.4 Strategy 1: Time-limited activities

These should be based on a published timetable which reflects the rhythm of the school year and external events. Within NPQH, a hotseat timetable was published from the start (January 2001). This timetable gave the title of the experts discussion and the dates experts would be online. The initial timetable specified two speakers every two weeks, one practising head and one expert. In the phone survey and in the online discussions learners commented on the value this schedule had in enabling them as busy professionals to timetable their time online. In addition a programme of discussion activities, which linked to the materials and which changed every two weeks was timetabled. This reflected the rhythm and nature of the face to face programme. Whilst the hotseat timetable worked well the rigourous nature and the fast pace of the bi-weekly discussion put a strain on the online teachers who were still getting to grips with the technology and the learning in an online environment, and yet had to change discussion items every two weeks.

This relentless pace was not suited to reflective, asynchronous, online discussions and meant that in only a few discussions had a stage been reached where dialogue had taken place before closure. After a first feedback meeting with the online teachers in June an ULTRALAB facilitator reported:

This pace was relaxed for NPQH cohort 2 in September 2001.

Our findings show that time limited activities are valuable and do help online learners timetable their learning. They also stress the continuing development of the online environment and emphasise the need for learners to return on a regular basis. However the pace and rhythm has to be suitable for an asynchronous online context.

3.5 Strategy 2: Induction process for online learners

Ideally this should be delivered by online teachers, rather than by ICT experts. The emphasis should be on the programme, rather than the technology:

(NPQH online teacher reflecting on cohort 1 of the NPQH programme)

By January 2002 one regional online teacher commented:

"We give all candidates an hour online at their introductory session. We organise this carefully and, as well as giving them a demonstration, have a worksheet for them to work through and special online activities."

This reflects the growing confidence of the online teachers who had received some online training and therefore felt increasingly assured and able to deliver the learners induction. In contrast to January 2001 when the first cohort of NPQH came online many online teachers felt unsure. One online teacher reflected:

By cohort 3 (January 2002) the same online teacher commented:

"Tutors are better trained and more confident now. We have tried hard to motivate them by reassurance and praise when appropriate. We have planned their training and produced suitable materials for it. We now have examples of good practice to show them."

And many were supporting colleagues new to online working:

(NPQH online teacher reflecting in the Good Practice community)

It is not surprising, given the experience of online teachers outlined above, which demonstrates increasing confidence, that the experience of learners reflected this.

3.6 Strategy 3: Encouraging participation by also using the online environment as an area for social interaction

As clearly indicated in the underlying philosophy of section 1, learning does not only take place in communities designed for discussing the programme related materials, but in informal community structures. In a face-to-face context this informality often takes place in discussions outside the structured lesson in coffee breaks or after the session meetings in the local pub. Online this informality is essential in getting learners to feel comfortable and in helping ice breaking, thus enabling relationships to build. The online teacher needs to take part in these activities to develop a relationship with learners and ULTRALAB's analysis of NPQH 'Shared Learning Spaces' undertaken in June 2002, show that those tutors who encourage and develop informality have the largest number of contributions in candidates key learning points. Informality also allows busy professionals to let off stream. The importance of this informality was recognised in both the Quality Assurance report on NPQH

(NPQH Interim Quality Assurance Report (May 2001)

and in the evaluation of the Bursars' community:

(University of Manchester Bursars evaluation report (May 2002)

Recognising this, online teachers have integrated social aspects into their community spaces. For example in the NPQH Good Practice Community, an online teacher comments:

ULTRALAB have observed the number of social discussions increasing as the online teachers confidence has grown with the development of 'work-free zones' (NPQH tutors 'Shared Learning Spaces'), funny stories ('It shouldn't happen to a Bursar' discussion in 'Bursars' Count') and Coffee and Wine Bars (as in example above).

However, this provides tensions for online teachers, who wish to ensure that substantive learning takes place, whilst recognising the importance of fun and delight. Our experience demonstrates that the best online teachers join learners in informal discussions, as well as directing the conversation. One online teacher in a meeting discussing this issue expressed it as follows:

With another tutor reflecting that:

3.7 Strategy 4: Support for community discussion through reminder e-mails, telephone and synchronous activities.

Those who do not contribute in the online environment are not visible. This makes it hard for online teachers to develop relationships and fulfil their role. Online teachers need to be proactive in encouraging learners to contribute and use a number of strategies, including phone calls and e-mails. This view is supported by a tutor in this comment:

With cohort 1 of NPQH tutors waited far too long before getting in touch with learners who had not been obviously online. This resulted in impetus being lost. Since cohort 2 the advice has been to contact learners not present online within two weeks of the programme start. This sets the expectation in the mind of the learners that contributions online are a requirement:

(NPQH online teacher in a tutor discussion)

3.8 Strategy 5: Aiding navigation through maps, contents lists and infrequent changes to design

There is a tension between freshness and continuity. However it is important that changes are made infrequently and that important items remain in the same place on community pages. For example a noticeboard needs to be where it can be easily found, whilst images, discussions can change in time. In an 18-month period the format of Virtual Heads remained unchanged.

As a result of feedback, navigation maps and images were introduced, and a list of regularly used items and hotseat archives maintained.

 

Image 3.1 Virtual Heads layout, June 2002

3.9 Strategy 6: Modelling behaviour and presence

The online environment is stark. Lacking in visual clues as to expected behaviour, learners may be reluctant to contribute. Teachers model this expected behaviour, building trust and encouraging learners to emulate, through answering questions and engaging in dialogue building on learners' comments but without dominating the discussion.

(An NPQH tutor responding in a summary of learning, Feb. 2002) 

This allows for a flow in the conversation in which learners can test and develop their ideas.

Conversely if a teacher is not seen to be actively contributing to a discussion, but merely reading, then the learners are not likely to want to contribute, or the discussion may end, learners becoming frustrated:

(A learner writing in her journal, Nov. 2001)

Tone is equally important. A comment made by an NPQH tutor whilst learning on another course stressed the importance of being positive to learners:

And having a positive and enthusiastic attitude towards the environment:

(A tutor writing in the Good Practice community (Feb. 2002)

In cases where online teachers are not present learners may continue to post but not explore the learning points in depth, or may go off at a tangent. Equally if the teacher posting is "too long, too descriptive and too academic...." (Interim Quality Assurance report) learners will find it difficult to contribute. Making it easy for learners to contribute in the early stages is essential and this is best done through real tasks which draw on the learners experience. For example in NPQH learners are first asked to contribute with a description of their school, and their vision for future schools, before moving onto the learning materials.

Online teacher comments need to be made as explicit as possible. Ambiguities can be heightened without the other clues of body language and context and by the time delay caused when using asynchronous discussions. In a face-to-face situation misunderstandings can be cleared up immediately. Online they need to be avoided in the first place.

3.10 Strategy 7: Taking account of the role being played in the learning environment

While it is important for teachers to be active in conversations, they need to have regard for the various roles that they are playing. In modelling online behaviour they are coaching, in being part of the conversation they are also learners:

"Two things in this that set me thinking further...."

"Like your postscript!!! I will try to get balance in due course... Does that mean that you think I am wrong about the danger of routinisation?"

(Comments from a guest in a hotseat, in response to questions)

This peer learning is also a way of reinforcing behaviour. When a teacher affirms their learning, it will encourage others to reflect on their own.

But a teacher is also a teacher, an expert. In the learning environment, this is usually seen in the opening remarks and stimuli:

(NPQH tutor opening a conversation, Mar 2002)

but should also be seen by online teachers challenging learners in a non-threatening way, to deepen knowledge and understanding

"Can I push you a little further on this"

(NPQH tutor in a module discussion group)

and tactically intervening to make learners think:

(NPQH tutor in a module discussion group)

This role is also the one played by guests in the hotseat. As experts they draw learners into the discussion and provoke them to ask questions. This strategy of teacher-as-expert is one that can be exploited in any learning situation. Here a NPQH tutor redefines her role by setting up a local hotseat, mirroring the style used at national level:

Q: (from learner): "How much is a small school allowed to rely on untrained LSA's to deliver special needs teaching and tutorial support? Is it merely a judgement made by individual school's?"

 A: (from online teacher): "There's not a simple answer to this. Fundamentally, the issue is about the QUALITY of the provision, which forms part of the teaching programme within the school. ....... The teacher should direct the work of the LSA through planning work that builds on pupils' prior learning and monitoring the progress pupils make. Clearly the school should make arrangements to determine and meet the training needs of support assistants and ensure they are appropriately briefed.......Teachers should be mindful of the pay differential between themselves and support assistants and take responsibility for pupils' learning in a 'reasonable' and 'professional' manner. Good support assistants are worth their weight in gold!"

(An exchange in a hotseat, November 2001)

In this particular example, there was a change of role but not a change of overall structure of the learning space. This hotseat has not knowingly resulted in an increase in participation but provides a good example of a change in role. The lack of responses in this particular space needs to be addressed by lessons learnt about structure.

The type of discussion, can vary but care needs to be taken as to what is appropriate to elicit the desired outcome. An exchange when 'Sharing Good practice' in the community of that name included the following:

Tutor A

"My informal monitoring tells me that Brainstorms generate more candidate contributions than other types of 'activities... ' include one for each unit. It helps the less confident candidates."

Tutor B

"I agree, the brainstorms seem to be popular. I also have found that the activities related to what people already know or feel are easy to respond to and have a quick take up. The activities that are related to the set activities from the unit workbooks, that demand that the candidates do some preliminary work first, are less quickly taken up - this sounds obvious. It makes me wonder whether the time that is given for each of the units is tight or whether longer should be given for completion of each unit."

A discussion that led to a great many in-depth contributions was in the form of a conversation. The target audience was intentionally limited to learners teaching in a particular type of school but learners from a wide variety of backgrounds made valid and useful contributions on a topic relevant to all. The question was brief (nine words only) and elicited 184 responses (see appendix for more detail).

3.11 Styles of learning and teaching

Learners have different preferred styles of learning as already referred to in section one. Adult learning should be problem-centred and not content-centred, Stephen Heppell (2001) comments "In a world awash with content and information the teacher's ability to annotate that information and to develop a critical awareness in learners seems to be invaluable".

The provision of content is not sufficient for adult learning. Online learning provides community and connectivity which has primacy of importance.

Online teachers need to consider the structure of the environment and activities to provide for the needs of these different learning styles. The assimilative will need ample resources at the start of a programme, whereas the activist will need to have opportunities to join discussions at the first possible opportunity.

"I go in for a purpose but find I often learn more by following a whim or checking out something that interests me...all of which takes time that I don't have. I believe I am also an activist/theorist but doesn't that cover all the options."

"The medium should enable you to adopt your own learning style. I am drawn to a theoretical base/models first so I prefer to read a paper/article first and then join a conversation. I suppose someone with a preference for action might join in a conversation first and see that as a stimulus."

"I'm highly curious by nature and need to get an overview of whole picture up front - that's my preferred learning style (Gestalt theory of perception)... therefore I went through every page/link/space that (the course) had on offer and felt satisfied/comfortable when I'd done the tour."

(3 NPQH tutors who are participating in a course as learners)

Teachers also have their own style and just as in a face-to-face situation they should use the online space to give an insight into their personality. An analysis of two NPQH tutors 'Shared Learning Spaces' undertaken in June 2001 demonstrated that different tutor personalities lead to the use of different online tools and different structures in the space but on similar learning contributions.

As well as matching the personal style of the teacher, it is important that any programme materials and associated activities are adapted to suit needs of learners and contexts, and provide complementary online discussions.  

If activities are lifted from another source and embedded verbatim in the online learning space, those which are inappropriate for an online context automatically fail. Similarly if questions are too complex they will fail. Those questions most likely to succeed (based on an analysis undertaken for Talking Heads) are those which contain one question, are short and straightforward. For example:

(An additional activity from unit 3.3)

If a blended learning approach has been taken, as was the case with both NPQH and the Certificate of School Business Management Pilot programmes, all learners will need support in reinforcing the links between the different aspects of a programme - for example the materials, conversations, activities (online and work-based), face-to-face training and assessment. Without this linkage there is the danger that some learners will regard the online aspects of learning as an extra and the variety of opportunity will be regarded as a burden. Here an NPQH candidate comments in a summary of learning and links to two other aspects of the programme.

(Tutor comment Oct 2001)

Some learners do not value the online element of the NPQH programme because it is not formally assessed:

(Tutor comment, May 2002) 

This gives the message that it is less important than other aspects and when busy professionals are forced to choose which elements to concentrate on the online community aspect will receive low priority. 

One of the main issues is learners having difficulty managing their own learning.

(Tutor comment, May 2002)

3.12 Summarising, flow and threads

As a discussion builds up online it can become difficult to follow. This is due to the volume of information and to the number of topics that may be raised in any one conversation. The teacher should take responsibility for summarising as the conversation progresses, the final summary and for starting new threads as appropriate. The managing and navigation to these new threads will also need care if the learner is not to be overwhelmed or confused.

"Thanks for all the contributions. Three strands are appearing..".

"You seem to be valuing IEPs and have suggested ways of reducing the bureaucratic load."

"(name) identifies benefits for the whole school arising from the Gifted and Talented provision, and also hints at the coverage across the curriculum. How do others see this?"

"How does the Portsmouth guidance cited by (name) strike others - is the distinction between gifted/core and talented/non-core useful?"

(Summary and question to move conversation on)

"The other issue, that of summarising is also key... we will be summarising as we go... we may even invite others to make their own summaries... for whose summary is the most appropriate/accurate??? Sometimes I have been thanked profusely for summarising key points, at other times folk have complained that I have missed things!"

(NPQH comment on summarising in discussion, course for tutors (Feb. 2002)

"I agree it is a good idea to share the reading and post summaries but a different tack. I have just had a look over the resources for this unit [ie I need an overview] and found the scale daunting. Initially this was off putting [ I think other learners may react in this way] but I am beginning to grasp the significance of the net to learning. So much is out there, the secret is having the key to find it. The bonus in this situation is having a group to check out understandings."(

Learner comment on volume and navigation, course for tutors (Feb. 2002)

By providing a summary the signal of closure is made and the learning can move onto the next topic. Online there is a lack of the distinct start and finish evident in face-to-face learning. These 'drumrolls' (Sloman, 2001) need to be provided by the teacher.

If a learner makes a point that suggests a new thread then they can be further empowered by taking responsibility for developing the new topic themselves.

"I would like to hear more about my fellow participants experience as online learners and what they felt motivated them to participate (could include this module)."

"Thanks for the prompt on motivation, and your brainstorm on it. If others would like to contribute to this brainstorm it can be found on the unit 2 or click here."

(Learner suggestion and response from teacher, tutors course Feb. 2002)

They should also be encouraged to summarise their learning and any conversations they are responsible for. A danger here though is that the more reflective may produce summaries of learning without contributing to the active learning discussions.

"I have noticed that there are a number of candidates who contribute to the national hot seat debates fairly regularly and a number of candidates who are actively engaging in the centre module discussions. But unfortunately it is not a high percentage of our candidates who are making any contributions."

(NPQH centre manager in discussion with tutors)

3.13 Giving feedback

It is imperative that learners receive feedback on their postings and reflections. A learner who does not take active part is not present, neither is an online teacher.

(University of Manchester Bursars evaluation report (May 2002)

Many learners faced with an absent teacher will drift. Care needs to be given to the style of this feedback. This can be done in the online space so that all learners can read it or can be one-to-one to allow for privacy of response. The table shows the number of postings in learners' Summaries of Learning for two tutor groups.

A further consideration is the style and length of response. Just as a long or complex question face-to-face deserves a reasoned response so online a brief remark may be seen as off-putting to the learner. Conversely, if a long response is given to a short question it may induce the expectation that the next question must be of length. This can be difficult and the conversation may stall.

3.14 Conclusion

Teaching in an online context is not that different, from teaching in a face to face environment, although the ability to 'slip time' does mean that strategies to get learners to participate have to be broken down and made explicit. Our examination of NPQH tutors 'Shared Learning Spaces' and Bursars tutors 'Online Tutorial Groups' have demonstrated that a sympathetic strong and imaginative teacher is able to transfer those skills online. Being interested in learning they are often willing and enthusiastic about transferring their skills and welcome the challenge of a new context. However the starkness of the online environment exposes those teachers who fall back on dissemination models, or often absent or not in sympathy with their learners. There is no hiding place online for weak or ineffectual teachers.

Learning online gives new opportunities for teachers to expand the programme and this is being increasingly recognised by those online teachers in both the NPQH and the Certificate of School Business Management Pilot programme,

"NPQH online goes over and above the content. It is about learners' professionalism, expertise and experience. It provides a wonderful opportunity for candidates to share."

(Tutor comment, May 2002)

Section 3: Appendix

Analysis of discussion in Virtual Heads

1. Summary of Quantitative Data

The style of the discussion was as a conversation. The number of contributions to the conversation attracted attention. An overview of some of the quantitative data is presented below (Table 3.1).

 

Quantified Items	Quantity
Start Date	1/10/01
Archive Date	6/3/02
End Date	31/3/02
Number Contributions	184
Number Participants	167
Number Re-participants	12
Number Males	55
Number Females	106
Number Gender unknown	6
Expressions of Thanks	12
Re-participants Expressing Thanks	3

 2. General Observations

There were many contributions that satisfied the opening remark and also expressions of appreciation for such contributions, for example

"If we are honest, we would say that the vision for the school is driven by the headteacher. We all recognise that the other stakeholders need to consulted, but ultimately the headteacher leads/manages the school and as a result needs to move the school forward in a way that they think is right. Show me a headteacher that strives for a vision that they do not believe in! So how do we get others on board? Perhaps you could ask all the stakeholders, including the parents (you will have to expect criticism) what three things could we do to improve the quality of teaching and learning in the school? You may find the results interesting! But it will give you an insight into what stakeholders want from the school (their vision)."

"Your vision must reflect your values so surely these would be apparent in whatever kind of school you find yourself. You will find that processes and outcomes will vary but the vision lives on. I do like the idea of three key points from all stakeholders to drive a vision forward. Thank you for that."

There was also much discussion and exploration of vision itself. E.g. defining, interpreting and exploring vision as the example below shows:

"Thanks to everyone for their insights- they have really helped me in my thinking. Isn't vision simply "WHAT I BELIEVE" in a school/headteacher context? I thought Suzannes comment about walking ahead...is true- its about leading and checking that the track is still clear enough for everyone to see where they are going."

Many heads also used the discussion to raise their own issues, difficulties or problems rather than for sharing strategy. Many of these contributions received responses however there was little re-participation to say if these responses were useful.

A number of recurring themes emerged from the discussion. These are shown in Table 3.2 together with the number of times they recurred. These could be arranged in more general themes; management issues, clarifying vision, effecting vision etc.

Recurring Theme		Recurring Theme con't
Ownership	115	Managing change	14
Heads role in process	61	Faith	14
Continual re-evaluation	45	No vision	10
Exploring/defining vision	41	Busy staff/heads	8
The children	36	Managing conflict	8
Communication	32	Managing vision skeptics	8
Creating or inheriting a vision	31	Celebrate achievements	6
Mission/vision statement	23	Others	9
Consultation	16
Reference to module or f2f training	16	Total	493

Table 3.2, Recurring themes in discussion.

3. Evidence for Community

Evidence for community was seen in contributions after they were classified according to Table 3.3 below.

Categories of Indicators to Community	Number
Me and my school	87
Disclosure & Venting	34
Agreement or reference to other participant	109
Ownership (proposing actions)	42

 Table 3.3, Classification of contributions for evidence of community

• All 184 contributions were analysed, most were assigned classifications according to Table A3.3.
• Approximately 80 contributions displayed multiple entries, i.e. two or more different indicators of community within a single contribution.
• 90-100 contributions had a single entry in the community section.
• 10-15 contributions showed no indicators for community.

above.

4. Evidence for Learning

The categories in Table 3.4 (below) are indicators of learning. Contributions to this discussion were analysed for these indicators.

 Table 3.4, Classification of contributions for evidence for learning.

• All 184 contributions were analysed, 50 were classified as in Table 3.4.
• Only 2 contributions displayed multiple entries.
• 48 contributions had a single entry.
• 137 contributions showed no indicators of learning.

5. Gillian Salmon's Taxonomy of Active & Interactive Thinking

• 97 contributions were analysed using an adaption of G.Salmon's taxonomy. These were the first 94 contributions (2 were duplicates) and the last 5 contributions.
• The effectiveness of the modified taxonomy is being investigated with a view to future use in discourse analysis. It is likely that it will be further modified.

Table 3.5 (below) shows the modified taxonomy and the results of the analysis using the modified taxonomy. Each item in the taxonomy has been coded, all later references to the taxonomy will use this code.

The three major changes are defined in the 'comments' column. They were introduced to suit the nature of the data, specifically to facilitate the process of discriminating between categories. In doing so the number of multiple entries (of codes for contributions) was reduced. However the analysis still recorded multiple entries because while this makes interpretation of the totals more complex it provides extra depth and detail as compensation.

	Taxonomy Category (adapted from G.Salmon)	Notes	Single Entry	Multiple Entry	Total
S1	Offering ideas/ resources and inviting critique of them		1	7	8
S2	Asking challenging questions		3	18	21
S3	Articulating, explaining and supporting positions on issues	Raising an issue	6	9	15
S4	Exploring & supporting issues by explanations & examples	Congenial reply	31	32	63
S5	Reflecting and re-evaluation ones personal position		0	4	4
S6	Critiquing, challenging, discussing & expanding others' ideas	Adversarial reply	1	14	15
S7	Negotiating interpretations, definitions and meanings		1	10	11
S8	Summarising, drawing together threads		3	7	10
S9	Proposing actions on developed ideas		1	15	16

Table 3.5, Adaption of G.Salmon's taxonomy and summary of the analysis.

The column 'single entry' shows the number of contributions that are entirely defined by each code. 'Multiple entry' shows the number of contributions that are partly defined by each code. For example, code S2: 18 contributions were partly defined by containing challenging questions and partly defined by one or more other Salmon categories; whilst 3 contributions were entirely defined by code S2. In total 21 contributions had S2 assignments. The frequency of single and multiple entries is shown below (Table 3.6).

Table 3.6, Summary of single and multiply entries for Salmon analysis.

Back to contents

Appendix: Section 3

Section 4