Imprinting and its impact on online learning environments

Research into the interactive behaviour and cognitive development of students in asynchronous online discussion forums has led to the development of a number of notions. Students in their interactions displayed similar cognitive indicators across various assigned topics for discussion. The impact of these initial communications led to the notion of “imprinting” as a means of characterising the consistent cognitive behaviour of the students in subsequent interactions. The record of cognitive indicators across the topics could be considered as cognitive tracks that demonstrate a particular learning approach described in terms of narrow or broad static cognitive tracks. Alternatively based on the instructional design students may exhibit narrow or broad dynamic cognitive tracks. This paper develops the relevance and impact of such concepts emerging from an analysis of the digital discourse. Their importance is reflected upon in the development of a new first year teacher education course. Educators should understand such concepts and take these into account when designing effective online learning communities. Online learning communities Various theoretical perspectives influence the design of courses and an understanding of how students learn in online environments. Their theoretical underpinnings are in social and cognitive constructivism. A number of researchers (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000; McLoughlin, 2002; Oliver & Herrington, 2003) have developed models that identify critical elements of online learning communities. Key elements associated with online instructional design, include interactivity, collaboration, social, teaching and cognitive presence. The development of higher order cognition requires strategies involving sustained interaction that can occur in both traditional and online learning settings. Learning occurs as knowledge is built from understanding and experience that usually takes time to assimilate. Individuals also learn at different rates and through differing experiences (Meyer, 2003). The online environment provides learners with the added opportunity to manage their own time to a large extent and in particular, if using asynchronous tools, to reflect upon what they are learning (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). They can share their reflections and increase their understanding through discussion and negotiation. Sustained interaction not only enhances the internal thinking processes but allows for open debate of issues. This supports the development of the cognitive and metacognitive capacity of the individual. Although learning may be a natural occurrence, higher order cognition is attained from learning experiences that are appropriately structured and facilitated by educators (Pitt, 1997). In addition, interaction and collaboration have been identified as key ingredients in online learning environments (King & Doerfert, 1996). However it cannot be assumed that learners automatically know how to interact and collaborate to achieve the desired learning outcomes. Educators must carefully build these experiences into the design. Later researchers (Agostinho, Oliver, Harper, Hedberg, & Wills, 2002; Garrison et al., 2000; McLoughlin, 2002; Stacey & Rice, 2002) have added to these critical elements with a body of knowledge emerging that identifies additional elements and addresses how individuals learn with the technologies. With constantly emerging technologies educators face the issues of which technologies are best suited to support the required learning outcomes and how to utilize these technologies that are evolving more rapidly than the pedagogies. Due to a lack of pedagogical guidance about integrating technologies for collaboration and communication, educators are left with mounting dilemmas and confusion (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). Currently, the corporate world drives much of the information economy and influences the development of information technologies. Educators require a greater say in the evolution of technologies that will equip students with the cognitive skills that make them successful lifelong learners. Technologies that support greater collaborative activities are emerging slowly, as educators push for more collaborative interactivity. 232 ascilite 2005: Balance, Fidelity, Mobility: maintaining the momentum? The most common and widespread communication technologies use text-based interactions. In the online environment, exchanges primarily take place through written language without the benefits of paralanguage (nonverbal cues). Written communication, therefore, could be considered a rather lean medium for communication with the absence of indicators that help to sustain the dynamics of the group. Such deficiencies may be seen as detracting from the learning. However, written communication does also have the benefit of allowing time for reflection which is important for higher order cognitive thinking (Garrison et al., 2000). Feenberg (1999, cited in Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001) suggests that writing should not be considered a poor substitute for the spoken language as it has its own properties and powers. Interaction has been a major theme in education for some time, but it has gained increased attention with the popularity of online learning and the reliance on technology to support the required interactions. The definition of interaction has been defined from many perspectives, influenced by numerous factors such as type of technology used, anticipated learning outcomes, instructor involvement and task design. Different types of interactions lead to different learning outcomes. This has particular implications in designing a pedagogical framework that must accommodate various types of interaction and perceived learning outcomes influenced by the activity and the chosen interactive technology. Technology also brings with it particular challenges, such as, familiarity and skills to operate the technology, and choosing the right type of technology, synchronous or asynchronous to accommodate the learning outcomes required from the task. Collaboration is identified as a desirable type of interaction in online learning communities. Collaboration encourages learners to move to the higher levels of cognition made possible by the intensity of the exchanges in arriving at a consensus. ‘Collaboration is an approach to teaching and learning that goes beyond simple interaction and declarative instructions’ (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 6). It is an ingredient that helps to form a community. Collaboration shifts the learning from being situated in an environment to a community, where the learner is enveloped in the learning process. Collaborative efforts result in the acquisition of knowledge, skills or attitudes (Graham & Scarborough, 1999). Students can benefit from collaborative learning whether low, average or high achievers (Susman, 1998), where student support and interdependence help to shift students in their understanding. Collaboration attempts to draw learners who may be at different stages in their understanding up to the same level for the particular task. In collaborative situations, higher achievers benefit through having to articulate and rationalise their own arguments. Information from the individuals is shared with the group while supporting the development of higher order thinking skills resulting in consensus through negotiation. Higher order cognition is the ability to think critically, creatively, and to be able to investigate, problem solve and synthesise the information. Where the interaction is dynamic, learners are able to contemplate the differing perspectives and reflect on their own views, thus building new meanings. Learning collaboratively provides a suitable educational context for critical thinking processes and deep learning styles (Newman, Johnson, Webb, & Cochrane, 1997). McLoughlin and Luca (2000) propose that according to sociocultural theory, dialogue is instrumental in helping learners to internalise their ideas and knowledge. Learning is then advanced ‘as tasks are pitched just beyond the learners’ zone of proximal development’ (McLoughlin & Luca, 2000), while interactions with other learners provide the scaffolding that supports their cognitive development. An analysis of cognitive development provides insight into the quality of the learning experiences. In online learning communities active interaction is an essential component in the development of critical thinking, as interaction encourages thinking that leads to reasoning and the revision of ideas (McLoughlin, 1997). Cognitive presence is the participants’ ability to construct meaning through sustained communication. It is a vital element of critical thinking (Garrison et al., 2000), and therefore becomes an essential element of any learning community. The overall evaluation of the effectiveness of online learning communities is difficult. Numerous models have been used to evaluate the learning that is occurring in discussion forums. Initially the focus of evaluation was on results evident from a quantitative analysis of the data which provide insight into work habits and students’ associated messaging behaviour as expressed through time/date references, email addresses and other available data. It was then realised that the digitising of the information opened up new possibilities for evaluation and greater insight could be gained from a qualitative analysis of the discourse. There is now a substantial body of literature that focuses on such discourse analysis. Early models (Garrison, 1992; Henri, 1992; Mason, 1992) are providing the foundations for the development of other evaluative models (Gunawardena, 1997; Newman, 1997; McLoughlin, 2000; Geer, 2001). These models have been used in varying ways to analyse the discourse for evidence of higher order thinking.