|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anthropology and
International Education via the Internet: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CONTENTS Acknowledgements The research described in this paper was supported by William
and Mary Faculty Research Fund, American Studies Graduate Fellowship, and
Keio University Telepresence Project Program. The authors would like to
thank the students and instructors of the COLT courses, the Department of
Anthropology, the American Studies Program, the Reves Center for
International Studies, the Office of the Dean of Arts and Sciences, the
Charles Center, and Information Technology Center of the College of William
and Mary; and the various leaders, groups, and centers of Keio University
Shonan Fujisawa Campus who provided valuable support and constructive
feedback. The authors wish to thank G. Cell, M. Riess, C. Green,
D. Aebersold, G. Shoal, J. Roberson, N.Saito, J. Murai, Y. Suzuki,
Y.Ishibashi, and others for their assistance with the COLT course
implementation and the data collection activities. COLLABORATIVE LEARNING MODEL: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE This article discusses the Collaborative Learning and Teaching
(COLT) model that has been developed jointly by the College of William and
Mary in Virginia, and Keio University in Japan. We evaluate the
pedagogical quality of the COLT, by using a case of an anthropology course
that connects American and Japanese students via international
videoconferences. This course is compared with a control course, by
using both statistical and ethnographic analyses. The COLT
project is based on our theoretical perspective on learning that is different
from those of the typical on-line course or distant education pedagogy. The traditional “lecture” model of science, mathematics, and
technology curricula emphasized the transmission of factual data and skills
from a teacher to a student. It is based on the concept of scientific
knowledge as a stockable and transferable entity. It is also based on
the construct of knowledge as being “certain” (Drane 2000).
Unfortunately this concept of knowledge as being tangible and transferable
has substantial impact on how computing is being integrated into higher
education. Today most distant learning courses are no more than
sophisticated correspondence courses, in which lone students in front of
computers take in a certain amount of information transmitted via the Internet.
In contrast, a number of studies about how professionals acquire
knowledge (c.f. Lave 1991, Sachs 1995, Sumner 1995) indicate that learning is
inextricably intertwined with multidirectional activities such as work and
play, and that learning is essentially a social activity. This position
on learning argues that the process of acquiring knowledge cannot be
separated from the process of applying it because knowledge is temporary,
developmental, and socially and culturally mediated. Thus,
learning is a nonobjective entity (Fosnot 1993). According to Shon
(1983), a key challenge in supporting individual learning is to promote
reflection-in-action processes. As knowledge is continually changing, the
students need to learn and relearn how to recognize potential cognitive gaps
in situated action while solving personally relevant problems (Shon 1983,
Fischer 1994). Therefore, we must constantly apply new knowledge to
overcome cognitive breakdown. Just like the self-reflective student
envisioned by Shon, today’s experts must continually learn to apply existing
knowledge to situations and acquire new knowledge in response to changing
situations. Unlike Shon and others who focus on individual-centered
learning, however, we argue that sociality is a core aspect of knowledge
co-creation and knowledge-sharing (Greeno 1988). We argue that learning is
fundamentally a social activity, embedded in ongoing domains of practice, and
that these empirical activities, in turn, give rise to new theoretical
problems that drive the learning to a new level of mental, affective, and
behavioral responses and endeavors. By sociality we mean mental, affective,
and behavioral aspects of symbolic relations among actors in situ.
We criticize the excessive individualization of school learning as presented
by Shon and others, where classroom activities are primarily defined in terms
of the individual learner’s self-discovery and knowledge development.
Instead, we argue that social relations among learners and between learners
and instructors are central to knowledge construction as well as knowledge
dissemination. In analyzing the societal process of learning, one can draw
certain insights from the recent experiences of Intranet technology
applications. Intranet uses were originally heralded by such pre-Web
groupware products as Lotus Notes™. However, this internal Web as an
over-encompassing environment for supporting workflow falls short of
expectations (Rein, McCue et al. 1997, Brannen at al. 1998). Rein et
al. found that off-the-shelf intranet software such as Lotus Notes™ were most
successful when deployed to support simple, well-understood, routine work
practices where the information was more or less factual and did not involve
interpretation. The present team argues that the concept of knowledge as a
tangible and definable commodity fails to capture the fact that the act of
knowing is literally embodied in the creative, multi-layered activity of
people who are deeply situated in organized sociality.
The theoretical and methodological problems related to the scientific
self-reflexivity, multiple subjectivity (Rosaldo 1989) and cognitive
authority are more salient than ever, when we consider pedagogical
innovations related to the Internet. The present approach to the social
and cultural dimensions of learning technology takes into account the domains
of schematic transformation, structure and agency, symbolic representations,
and anthropological locations (Gupta & Ferguson 1997). Our theoretical perspective to collaborative learning is similar
to those developed by constructionist learning environments as identified by
Grabinger (1996) and Sherry, and Billing and Tavalin (2000). In
essence, constructionist learning environments value personal autonomy,
generativity, reflectivity, active engagement, personal relevance, and
cultural pluralism (Sherry et al. 2000:109.) They engage students in a
continuous collaborative process of knowledge construction in an environment
that reflects the context in which that knowledge will be created in
situ. As one of the primary learning activities, it emphasizes
knowledge-building conversation and joint task execution among collaborative
groups of students. Based on this realization, various researchers have
prevented notable learning models. Examples include CSILE by Brown
(1994,) the CoVis project by Pea (1994,) Mediated Collaborative
Knowledge-Building in England (Crook 1994,) Online Book Discussion in Norway
by Mehus (1995) and Group-Based Project Work in the Netherlands (Collis et
al. 1997,) Asynchronous Learning Network (electronic conversation between
students and instructors) studied by Winiecki (1999,) and the WEB Project in
Vermont (Sherry, Billing, and Tavalin, 2000.) These models provide
shared space for students to interact and comment on each other’s
work. In contrast to these models, the COLT model moves one step
further to engage students because of the following factors:
The COLT model allows collaborative groups to execute tasks that
are too complex for one individual to undertake. It provides
opportunities for students to participate in cross-cultural group dynamics,
to articulate, explicate, and defend their ideas and hidden motives, and to
manage their work flow amid a high degree of uncertainty. At the end,
they must create an intellectual product collaboratively. In an uni-cultural setting, major variables that influence the
success of group collaboration include: support for communication; support for
handling sharable resources and making them available; socio-dynamic aspects
of supporting the group (maintaining coherence), and integration of the
project with the curriculum in which it is embedded (Collis et al.
1997). The COLT model aims at satisfying not only these four aspects of
variables identified by Collis et al., but also offers an appropriate case
for computer mediated learning and pedagogical innovation that goes beyond
asynchornic electronic conversation among participants as envisioned by the
conventional “constructionist” models mentioned above. The COLT model
moves us beyond typical dualistic learning where students are asked to
generate correct or incorrect answers to assess “certain, stockable
knowledge” as it pulls them into a world of uncertainty and emergent
knowledge creation. The main objective of COLT via the Internet is to use
information technology (IT) to sustain and extend multi-directional
context-sharing and community-building for co-learning and co-knowing. The
pedagogical model is to develop “high-tech” yet “high-touch” classes.
Main characteristics of the COLT course are as follows:
We are currently at the third year of the experimental COLT
course offerings. During the next few years, the model will be extended
to several courses in the anthropology, modern languages, sociology, history,
business, and education departments, as well as in the law school.
Additional faculty will be trained in the use of the technology, and
workshops in instructional design will be available. Faculty members
will then teach their own classes. More courses will be added in
2001-2003. These courses will form a core base site for this research
project (2000-2003). The COLT project team investigated the effectiveness of an
explorative anthropology course in comparison with a control course taught by
the same instructor with conventional methods such as classroom lectures and
discussions. The following hypotheses were tested: Hypothesis (1): The Internet-based
course based on the pedagogical model of COLT improves the student’s learning
at a statistically significant level. The COLT model produces superior
academic outcomes in terms of the student’s comprehension and mastery of the
course materials; communicative competence (reading, writing, oral
presentation, multimedia presentations); critical reasoning skills; and
knowledge application to problem solving. The COLT method also improves the
learner’s work motivation and the overall course satisfaction. Hypothesis (2): The Internet-based
course based on the COLT model improves the instructor’s teaching
effectiveness at a statistically significant level. The COLT model produces
superior performance, as measured by multiple assessment methods, in terms of
the attainment of the course objectives; the course organization; the quality
and coverage of instructional materials; the diversity of teaching formats
employed; and the professor’s work motivation and job
satisfaction. The COLT course was entitled “Information Technology and Global
Culture” and the control course, another anthropology course, was entitled
“Japanese Society: Contemporary Issues.” Both courses were offered during the fall semester of 1999: In
the COLT course, W&M students met in a high-tech classroom every Monday
night with an instructor. There were fifteen computers in this classroom,
each capable of teleconferencing. This class was linked via the Internet to a
class at Keio University in Japan where the students met with an instructor
every Tuesday morning. Listed below is the 1999 fall class composition,
including sex, age, grade level and major field of W&M and Keio students:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table Two: Composition of Keio University Students |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At the beginning of the class, each W&M student started a
face-to-face, teleconference with two Keio University students in Japan,
whose image appeared on the screen in front of his or her computer. A
large whiteboard screen in front of the whole class projected an image of the
Keio classroom, transmitted via a teleconference between the two professors’
computers. Both professors physically stood in front of the respective
classroom where digital cameras scanned the whole class for transmitting
images and voices across the Pacific. The control board allowed the
professors to project any computer screen image of the students onto the
white board. The instructors gave an introduction and then encouraged student
discussions on specific topics both on- and off- line. After several weeks,
the students were asked to organize bi-national research teams and to develop
specific research projects in order to study the cultural dimensions of
globalization. As the course was learner-centered, the students were
asked to define specific topics of inquiry. The instructors presented
the overall framework for research and guided students on and off-line. In
addition to communicating with one another via the Internet, students created
web pages and put their research proposals, interview and survey questions,
audio-video-clips, and any other representations on the web. They conducted
fieldwork in different locations, and wrote joint reports. At the end
of the course, they jointly presented findings to the W&M and Keio
audiences, using deployment multimedia presentation tools. Unlike lecture-based courses, the COLT course encouraged the
learner to be the creator of information and the presenter of acquired
knowledge. The students drew upon one another both as partners and
resources. The research topics students chose ranged from “a
comparative analyses of Sony and Mac electronic marketing strategies,” and
“the use of web pages for high school education,” to “the population Diaspora
and entrepreneurship of East Indians in Japan and the US.” The combination of
concurrent videoconferences, fieldwork at local sites, and personal
interactions via the Internet seems to enhance the student’s sense of
“real community” and to foster friendship for co-learning across the Pacific.
To date, few studies have tested the effectiveness of classes
utilizing collaborative learning strategies via the Internet. As for
the comparison of the conventional on-line courses (that transmit stockable
knowledge) versus face to face lecture courses, Johnson et al. studied the
differences between a graduate course on human resources that was taught
nationwide to individual distant learners, and a course on the same subject
taught in a conventional graduate classroom lecture format. All their
data was collected at or near the end of the semester. According to
Johnson et al., each module began with an overview of the topic followed by a
discussion of its application. Within the face-to-face setting, this
information was delivered during a three hour class session using live
lectures, PowerPoint presentations, and handouts; while in the online setting
the information was delivered through prerecorded streamed audio lectures,
PowerPoint presentations, and handouts posted on the course web site. They
reported a lack of difference in the learning outcomes from the two course
formats taught by the same instructor using the same teaching materials
(Johnson et al, 2000). Such findings, although tentative, do support
the continued development of online instruction programs. However,
Johnson et al. learned that student satisfaction regarding the on-line
courses failed to meet the expectations of the traditional classroom lecture
format, because “face to face” classrooms rate significantly higher in most
assessment categories (such as instructor quality, course quality, course
structure, instructor support and student interaction). Johnson, et al
(1999) noted that student ratings may tend to be higher when there is a
personal connection between the instructor and the students, something that
may not typically occur in an on-line course. According to the Johnson
study, the on-line environment lacks the critical social dimension presumed
by traditional classroom experiences. To add more methodological depth to the assessment research on
collaborative learning, the present team conducted course portfolio analyses,
multiple questionnaire surveys, personal interviews, on-site observation,
ethnographic fieldwork, and discourse analyses. Methodologically, the
project combined qualitative and quantitative investigations, and combined
case studies and questionnaire surveys. The electronically entered data
were thematically categorized. Field researchers conducted participant
observation, semi-structured interviews, video recordings of classes, and
archival research. The student research topics for this course were
similar to those of the COLT course, ranging from US-Japan educational issues
to socio-economic problems. Thirty-two undergraduate students were
enrolled in the control course, and 27 students filled the course evaluation
form at the end of the semester. We will report four types of research findings: (a) from
statistical research based on the end of the term course evaluations; (b)
from multiple questionnaire on computer literacy and COLT course evaluation;
(c) from multiple personal interviews; and (d) ethnographic field work. Ethnographic inquiries were made throughout the semester that
further clarified the issues revealed by statistical analyses and
interviews. Real time data, gathered and archived digitally, provided
an important check against retrospective reports and attitudinal data that
inevitably emerged from survey questionnaires, structured interviews, and
student course evaluations. The process-oriented research in the “real
university setting” revealed a number of policy-relevant variables and technical
issues that point to the end-users approaches toward distance learning.
Based on research, we report the following categories of factors and
tentative findings that seem to influence the success of the COLT model. (a) Statistical Analysis of Course Evaluation At the end of the term, students enrolled in the COLT
course and the control course, Anthro 347 were asked to evaluate the
respective courses in terms of the instructor’s overall quality, the overall
quality of the course, course organization and structure, instructor
availability, and support, teaching materials, and other relevant issues.
They were asked to rate the course from 1 (poor) to 5 (very good). The
mean scores, medium and standard deviations of the evaluation of the two
courses are listed below. Table Three: Comparison Of Course
Evaluation |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We conducted two questionnaire surveys concerning the students’
self-evaluation of their technical competence. At the beginning of the
semester all students in the COLT course, except for one graduate student
evidenced a basic knowledge of computer usage (i.e. word-processing, mouse
manipulation, familiarity with the Internet). This particular graduate
student had no prior experience with computers and she eventually dropped out
of the course. As for the rest of the students, there was no major
discrepancy in their prior computer experiences. On the first day of class (August 26, 1999) the students were
given approximately ten minutes to complete a Computer Literacy Survey.
Later in December, they took the same questionnaire again. The purpose of the
survey is threefold: (1) to gain an understanding of the level of computer
skills and their improvement, (2) to analyze student familiarity with various
software and their improvement, and (3) to gather information on their
emotional and personal attitudes toward the use of the Internet and computers
in general. Students were asked how many hours a week they used a
computer. Their responses indicate a polarity in usage; the survey
revealed a broad range (from three to thirty hours a week) of computer
utilization. Three students use a computer approximately 1-3 hours a
week. One student uses a computer 5-10 hours a week. Three
students use a computer 20-25 hours a week. Students were asked to indicate the three most frequent reasons
for their computer use. They responded with the following five
functions from a list of 11 options: all seven use email, six use word
processing, five use the World Wide Web, two use chat, and one uses
graphics. The subjects were then asked to evaluate the importance of
the following factors while using the Internet. Students regarded navigating
tools as the most essential function. Students rated the following
elements in order of their importance: transmission speed, usefulness of
subject matter, audio clarity, knowledge of subject matter, help line,
physical comfort, trouble shooting and feedback mechanisms were rated as
cardinal functions. Students were also asked to list five adjectives that described
their attitude on the first day of class toward the Internet. Students
responded with a wide variety of adjectives that can be classified into positive
and negative categories. In the first survey on the Internet, 67% of
the adjectives were positive and included terms such as: useful, fast,
exciting, interested, helpful, educational, necessary to life, appreciative,
awe, expansive, amazing, powerful, dynamic, curious, cheap and
motivated. Thirty-three percent of the adjectives used to describe
their feelings toward the Internet were negative. They included
stubborn, fearful, distaste, confusion, behind, overwhelmed, “unorganized,”
and arbitrary. As the semester neared its completion, in early December,
students were again asked to anonymously complete a second course evaluation
survey. This survey, juxtaposed with the first survey at the beginning
of the course revealed a 17% increase in their level of comfort with the
Internet. By December, 84% of the adjectives used to describe their
attitude toward the Internet were positive (in contrast to 67% at the
beginning of the semester.) (ii) The COLT course evaluation We conducted two questionnaire surveys on the course in addition
to the end-of-the term course evaluation. At the beginning of the semester,
the COLT students were asked to list five adjectives that described their
attitude toward this new course, Information Technology and Global
Culture. In early December, students were again asked to list five
adjectives describing their feelings toward the course. The results of
the two surveys indicate that the students were more pleased with the class,
as they used adjectives such as amazing, humorous, awesome, radical, and
fun. The negative reactions cited by some of the students included
adjectives such as difficult, slow, processual, and frustrating. The
two surveys of August and December were juxtaposed to see changes in their
personal attitudes toward the course. The surveys elucidate a 5%
increase in positive attitudes toward the course. In the first survey
82% of the adjectives were positive, but by the end of the semester, 87% of
their adjectives used to describe their attitudes toward the course were
categorized as positive. Some of more frequently used positive
adjectives included: excited, happy, fun, social, creative, curious, useful,
stimulating, international, informative, interesting, encompassing,
challenging, anxious, new, relevant, motivated, and thrilled. The
negative adjectives listed included nervous, apprehensive, intimidating and
demanding. The survey responses attest to the success of the COLT model
in student work motivation and course satisfaction. Overall, student participants
indicated a high level of emotional responses to the COLT pedagogical model. We conducted multiple personal interviews with students in early
September, early December, and late January. On a technological level, students
cited as their most significant experiences of the course as “learning
communication technologies,” “making a homepage,” and “learning how to
use Internet functions.” The concurrent interviews with students showed
that William and Mary students conceded that their level of cooperation with
their Keio partners was limited, unorganized and difficult at times, but that
their feelings towards the course were positive. Students cited their level
of cooperation with their research partners as invigorating, stimulating,
creative, exciting, and smooth. In addition, we have learned that sociality was the single most
significant experience that the students garnered from the Information
Technology and Global Culture course. Students described how
invigorating and mentally stimulating it was to communicate with Japanese
students over the Internet. For example, one student stated the most
important activity she experienced was “interviewing people on several
different continents.” Similarly, another student cited his most significant
experience was “performing fieldwork with people in Japan.” Likewise, students described how exciting it was to make new
friends via the Internet. One student commented, “the greatest
highlight for me was being able to discuss our weekends, just as if we were
friends from any normal class.” Another student summarized the general
consensus of the William and Mary participants with her statement, “the
highlight for me was making friends in Japan.” One female student remarked,
“I think the best part was actually just chit-chatting about nothing at all
with your partner, I mean, yeah, the project was cool, but really getting to
know someone was probably the best part of this.” In the COLT project,
it is proved that sociality plays a vital role for motivating the students’
learning in cross-cultural communication skills and technological growth. Our ethnographic field research has uncovered that there were
several other issues that influence the success of the COLT project. They
are: (a) how to match technological tools and diverse student activities; (b)
how to deal with different educational systems; (c) how to handle different
academic expectations; (d) how to maintain a good balance between technological
innovation and pedagogical needs; and (e) how to negotiate power dynamics. (a) Matching Right Technological Tools and Diverse Student
Activities With the COLT model, we have learned that more specific
technological tools must be created and geared toward each step of student
activities as they engage in collaborative research and learning. While
designers of learning environments may think that the more sophisticated the
technological tools, the better it is for the course, we have learned that this
is not necessarily the case. The COLT students used different
tools for different activities, and did not always use the most sophisticated
tool such as international videoconferences (IVCs) for problem solving.
The following passage speaks to the ways in which students developed a
community learning experience using various technological tools. The steps
which comprise the contextual flow of the course, in chronological order
include: course introduction; rapport building among and between student
participants; collaborative creation of student research topics;
collaborative creation of research strategy; field data collection; field
data analysis; writing of research findings; collaborative editing of
documents, narratives and other written materials; creation of multimedia
materials (gathering of visual materials, combination of narratives and
video/picture strips, ordering of slides); multimedia presentation; and
evaluation. Table Four: Student Activities and Use of Learning Tools |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ethnographic observation over the duration of the course,
however, suggests that there were several shifts in students’ preferences for
particular technological tools at various stages. The month of October
witnessed the establishment of rapport between student and technology support
participants in addition to students researching their semester themes and
developing their research strategies, all with the usage of international
videoconference (IVC), email, chat and the homepage. November brought
weekly videoconferences and more in-depth research strategizing. Once individual
research was under way with research partners, they concentrated on
collecting data and had less time putting the materials on the web.
During this period, they became more dependent on email and chat, rather than
IVCs, thus indicating a switch to a simpler mode of communication. It can be argued that this interesting regression toward a
simpler technology coincided with their mastery of IVC and with the end of
their initial rapport building. By then, the students began to focus
more on the content of their communication rather than the usage of
communication tools. As they had much to talk about, the students opted
for simple, ubiquitous, and convenient e-mails, instead of holding IVCs that
required a higher level of coordination. In addition, on a technical level,
the audio quality of the IVCs was not optimal, because seven or eight
concurrent IVCs in one session created background noise for those sitting
close to one another. It is also possible that their preference for e-mail
written communication was due to their attempt to reduce uncertainty and
psychological stress in cross-cultural conversation, embedded in
oral/visual/kinetic IVC. From the end of November through January correspondence between
Japanese and American students waned due to scheduling difficulties that will
be discussed shortly. However, during this period, some students were
engaged in field data collection and analysis implementing videoconferencing
and email. Because students were actively involved in multiple tasks, the months
of November through December witnessed the most stressful phases of the
course. Students complained about scheduling conflicts. They
conceded that the level of cooperation with their Keio partners was limited,
unorganized, and difficult at times. Some students were
encouraged strongly by the professor to open up and talk more during
videoconferencing. It is worthy to note that during this period student
participants were also utilizing the technological tools with the highest
level of sophistication such as Trans-Pacific file exchange, PowerPoint
presentation, and IVCs as well as email and the homepage creation.
During this period, more coordination among students by instructors became
necessary, as miscommunication, misunderstanding, different expectations, and
different emotional commitment became more salient among the
participants. Following a winter break from academic responsibilities (for
roughly three weeks), William and Mary student participants had an
opportunity to evaluate their experiences and they became more
self-reflective. The final surge of activities took place after the winter
break, as they were required to create multimedia presentations of their
research findings. The fact that they were to present the research
findings to the Japanese and American audiences renewed the momentum, and
during this phase, the students tended to use all forms of technological
tools. By then, they had become adept at using learning programs such
as PowerPoint, video editing, and net-meetings. (b) How to Negotiate Different Education
Systems One would expect to find some cross-cultural communication
problems due to the bi-cultural nature of this course. A significant
communication challenge for implementing the COLT course, however, was not
necessarily language or national-culture related. Rather, many
communication problems surfaced because of the educational system disjuncture
between Keio University and William and Mary. While both universities
use semester systems, there are significant differences in their course
scheduling and academic calendar. For example, Keio students do
not come back to the campus from the summer vacation until late September,
while William and Mary begins its fall semester at the end of August.
Therefore, by the time the Keio participants became ready to learn about this
new course, the William and Mary students were already one month into the
course. The fall semester at William and Mary ends in early December,
while Keio does not finish its semester until the end of January.
In order to solve this calendar problem, the instructor, with the consent of
the students and the administration extended William and Mary course till
January. The instructor gave out “incomplete” grades at the end of the
fall semester, and required William and Mary students to come back for the
final joint presentation in January and to receive the grades for the course
in January. William and Mary students returned to Williamsburg to complete
their final presentations -- the culmination of the entire semester -- after
several weeks of winter vacation. We noticed that electronic
communications between the research partners across the Pacific fizzled while
they were away in December. The disjuncture of schedules between Keio
and William and Mary raised several concerns for the students. On
January 22, the students participated voluntarily in a Saturday night
practice IVC session. Later, a male student commented, “When we are
ready to push really hard, they (Keio students) were maybe slacking a little
bit, and when they are ready to push, you know, it’s Saturday night here.”
Another female student concurred and stated, “I was going around asking
people the questionnaire during the last two days of finals (in early
December.) My partners put off their fieldwork, so they were doing
their fieldwork during my Christmas break.” Another male student commented on
the same issue, “I think if we would have done the presentations before we
went to break, I think mine would have been better. Because, we were
constantly talking to the partners and over break I tried to talk to them,
you know...and you kind of lose your track. Like, you are on this track
and you gotta do this presentation and you go to break and you get a little
off track and I think it took away from the presentation.” (c) Dealing with Different Academic Expectations In a personal interview, the course instructor of William and
Mary was quick to point our other inherent structural and cultural problems.
At William and Mary, most regular courses are three-credit courses, and a
typical undergraduate takes four courses per semester. The instructor
who is familiar with the Japanese system mentioned, “In Japan, students are
taking 12 courses for the whole year, and that means 12 different classes a
week! They don’t have the structural ability to focus on a particular
class as the William and Mary students have the imperative to do that.
And, that won’t change. Unless it is made a two koma course (or
the equivalent of two courses) for the Japan side, or unless Keio
restructures its entire curriculum.” He also noted that because of the
cultural reasons, he instructed his students to accept a more “overt
leadership role” in completing assignments. Participants at William and Mary experienced a certain degree of
confusion about their academic performance expected by their instructor
compared to those of the Japanese students. Many students wanted to
know more clearly the academic expectations of their research partners in
Japan. One William and Mary student, for example, relayed her story,
“Just about two days before the project was due, I realized after I wrote
emails to the Keio University instructor and Professor R. here, I just
realized that they were expecting two completely different things for the
project. They wanted us to do the whole layout completely differently,
and for my group -- my group and I just had some communication problems that
were not English related (because they were really good with their English)
but, they just had a different assignment over there and we just realized it
at the last moment. So, I am just hoping [in the future] there can be a
little more communication about that.” Students agreed it would have been helpful for them to have
access to the Keio student’s syllabus. Another suggested holding more
collaborative, lecture-based International videoconferences (IVC’s) as
opposed to the focus on group research IVC’s. One female student
contrasted the teaching styles of the two instructors, at Keio and at William
and Mary. She stated that the classroom in Japan was a “little bit more
relaxed than the William and Mary Professor was allowing us to be...”
This student suggested that an IVC where both teachers take turns instructing
over the Internet would allow both groups the opportunity to share the
“classroom aspect,” that it would improve communications, and “our one-on-one
relationships.” (d) Finding a Balance between Technological Innovation and
Pedagogical Needs Another related issue is to find a good balance between
technological innovation and pedagogical needs. New learning technologies are
constantly evolving, and it is understandable that the technology-oriented
people wish to introduce better or more innovative tools to the learning
environment. While this anthropology course was underway, we needed to
upgrade technology and conduct some technological experiments. Early in 1999,
Keio and William and Mary established high bandwidth direct connections
between the two campuses, and we tested new environments and software
programs for trans-Pacific file exchange, netpoint, collaborative editing,
video archiving, and retrievals. While everyone, including the
technical support staff at William and Mary, agreed to the so-called
Telepresence Software Suite experimentation, the implementation and
experimentation posed several challenges for course management and
pedagogical apparatus. One William and Mary technical specialist voiced
mixed emotions about the software experimentation. On one hand, he
believed the software was embraced by the students and evidenced potential
upon their further development. One of the technical staff commented, “I
think we would be somewhat blinded if we were to say, ‘No, we don’t accept
any of the value of these products until they are completely proven.’” But he
also explained that the tools were introduced too late in the semester to be
fully integrated. According to him, “The tools were sort of introduced
mid-stream, so there wasn’t really an opportunity to incorporate them fully
into the class. In the two or three opportunities that were presented
to the students...they did utilize some of the chat capabilities, some of the
report writing capabilities, in which students could write a report jointly
on-line. They were very interested in these tools, but not having them
at the beginning of the course, when we introduced the technology, not sort
of orienting the students toward their use, and not having versions that were
written in American, so the students could not sort of help themselves
navigate. It required Keio specialists here to support them. I
think what you could surmise from the student reaction to the tools, was that
there was potential here and there was student interest.” According to the William and Mary instructor, “from my personal
position, it was a request that was made upon me and the course in general --
in the attempt to accommodate that relationship...but, it created a diversion
for me and I think for the students, but perhaps not as much for the students
as for me, but being able to have a sense of control over the class. If
I had the option, I would probably create a separate space for that kind of
experimentation.” A technician mentioned that we should probably establish a
“break-out lab” for future experimentation with the software. Another female student voiced strong concern on this issue
stating, “We didn’t get a chance to actually practice using the Net-ware that
the Keio group brought. They had to come in here and really fast
introduce that stuff to us and it wasn’t fair to them and it wasn’t fair to
us to have to go through that. That could have all been avoided if a
Keio technical person had been here during the semester. And, I think
that the whole problem with us not using it is something purely political
between the teachers and the schools.” Conversely, another female student
interpreted the software experimentation as, “like a special kind of thing --
yeah, we have these two people on both sides of the world that are doing
this. Let’s have them test it out!” (e) Negotiating Power Dynamics Because of the required number of student enrollments, class
composition and language problems, one American student and two Japanese
students were matched to form a bi-national research team. William and
Mary students issued concerns about the structural inequality of the research
groups; One student commented that she did not appreciate having two people
on the Keio side and one person on the William and Mary side. She
continued, “I just had a recent problem where they were talking about how to
do the presentation and I said, ‘Look, I don’t want to do this and this is
why...’ and they somehow got together and did it anyway, forgetting that I
had said anything and so it was just kind of like two on one.” Another female
student confirmed, “I just think it was a lot of work for one person on our
side. I mean, I had actually asked my professor before if we could work
with more than one and there were only seven of us and there were so many of
them, that it didn’t work out like that. It was just a lot of work and
they had two people doing it and we only had one, and so it was just
hard.” At the same time, it is noteworthy that during the course,
non-English speaking Keio students raised an issue of the “language-based
hegemony” as an example of power asymmetry between the two classes. Professionals engaged in cross-cultural projects such as direct
foreign investment, inter-university research projects, technological
transfer, academic exchanges, study-abroad programs, and corporate R&D,
work out structural, cultural, and value differences among project
participants in order to successfully complete their tasks and attain desired
outcomes. As academics, we always note that anthropological insights
are effective tools for cultural negotiation, team-building, and conflict
resolution. We state that anthropological training enhances the
person’s negotiation and problem-solving skills, particularly under a
culturally uncertain circumstance where a “common-sense scheme” or a
“tried-and-proven solution” does not exist. In this context, Chris Drane recently posted an important
article entitled, “Certain Knowledge and the Conventional University.”
He notes that today’s academics are driven to narrow specialization and that
the conventional university exploits academics by encouraging them to pursue
their desires for scholarly fame, for authoritative voice, and for certain
knowledge, to the exclusion of all else. In criticizing the current
academic obsession with certain knowledge, Drane states: The difficulty with certain knowledge is that most of the
important aspects of life cannot be dealt with by certain knowledge. What do
I really want to do? What is that other person thinking? What is the best
form of society? What gives meaning to my life? How should one counsel an
employee? Life is full of such questions that can be only answered by
embracing a much wider framework of reasoning than is encompassed by the
realm of certain knowledge. The vital point here is that by not
preparing students to deal with uncertain knowledge we limit their
development and so impoverish them as human beings and citizens (Drane
2000:1). Even when a professor understands the need to teach uncertain
knowledge, we often teach it in the context of certain knowledge; such as a
subject listing "proven" anthropological methods to improve
cross-cultural communication skills. The conventional
anthropology courses such as the control course, Anthro 347, is a good example
of transmitting the content of the “certain,” “authored” and “authoritative”
knowledge possessed by the instructor to the students. On the other hand, the goal of the COLT program is to provide a
carefully organized learning environment where the student must utilize and
manipulate uncertain (or “emergent”) knowledge. In this environment, the
students are asked to manage socio-cultural processes of knowledge creation
and dissemination. The COLT students receive ample opportunities to
navigate themselves in the sea of cognitive and emotional dissonance.
They must articulate their own praxis and habitus to others in
cross-cultural negotiation. They sometimes face power inequity as they
deal with someone else’s dominant perspectives and power games. In this
learning process, they are encouraged to think about their own cognitive,
affective, social, and conceptual learning styles and modes of
thinking. The students are engaged in critical reasoning and self
reflection, and learn how to transform their present mental scheme to a new
level of knowledge. At the same time, they learn the joy of sharing cognitive
and emotional understandings and of developing friendly sociality with
someone thousands miles away. The above-mentioned COLT pedagogical perspective is vital to
liberal education, partly because in the information age, any form of
certain knowledge will eventually be encapsulated in a computer program.
In this day and age, we believe that the most successful William and Mary
graduates we can produce are the ones who can deal with uncertain and
emergent knowledge. Using the latest technological tools and anthropological
insights, our project aims at bringing the world to our students and at
providing them with a lively social environment where they can engage with
one another for intellectual exploration. This project directly relates
to our strategic initiatives to develop student-oriented learning tools,
pedagogical innovations, and anthropological education in order to produce
tomorrow’s intellectual leaders. Brannen, M.Y., J. K. Liker and W.M. Fruin (199)
Recontextualization and Factory-to-Factory Knowledge Transfer from Japan to
the US: The Case of NSK. In J. K. Liker, W.Sm. Fruin and P. Adler,
etds. Remade in America: Transplanting and Transforming Japanese
Management Systems. New York: Oxford University Press. Brown, A. L. (1994) The Advancement of Learning.
Educational Researcher. 23 (8):4-12. Brown, A.L, and A.S., Palincsar (1989) Guided Cooperative
Learning and Individual Knowledge Acquisition. In L.B. Resnick, ed., Knowing,
Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 393-451. Collis, B., Andernach, T., and N. VanDiepen (1997) Web Environments
for Group-based Project Work in Higher Education. International
Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 3 (2/3): 109-130. Crook, C. (1994) Computers and the Collaborative
Experience of Learning. London:Routledge. Drane, C. (2000) Certain Knowledge and the Conventional
University. Paper posted
http://www.eng.uts.edu.au/re-visioning/#Documents. Fischer, G. (1994) Turning Breakdowns into Opportunities for
Creativity. Knowledge-Based Systems Journal, 7(4): 221-232. Fischer, G., J. Grudin, A. C. Lemke, R. McCall, J. Ostwald, B.
N. Reeves and F. Shipman (1992). Supporting Indirect, Collaborative Design
with Integrated Knowledge-Based Design Environments." Human Computer
Interaction 7 (Special Issue on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work) (3). Fischer, G., A. C. Lemke, R. McCall and A. Morch (1991).
"Making Argumentation Serve Design." Human Computer Interaction
6(3-4): 393-419. Fischer, G., K. Nakakoji, J. Ostwald, G. Stahl and T. Sumner
(1993). Embedding Computer-Based Critics in the Contexts of Design. Human
Factors in Computing Systems (Interact '93 and CHI '93), Amsterdam (24-29
April), ACM Press. Fischer, G., R. McCall, Ostwald, B. Reeves and F. Shipman
(1994). Seeding, Evolutionary Growth and Reseeding: Supporting the
Incremental Development of Design Environments., Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI '94), Boston, MA. Fosnot C,T, (1993) In Search of Understanding the Case for
Constructivist Classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development. Grabinger, R. S. (1996) Rich Environments for Active
Learning. In D.H. Jonassen, ed. Handbook of Research for
Educational Communications and Technology, Pp.665-692. New York:
Simon and Schuster Macmillan. Greeno, J. (1988) Situaions, Mental Modesl, and Generative
Knowledge. Polo Alto:IRL. Gupta, A. and J. Ferguson (1997) Anthropological Locations:
Boundaries and Grounds of aFeiled Science. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press. Hakken, D. (1999) Cyborg@Cyberspace:
An Ethnographer Looks to the Future. New York: Routledge. Johnson, S.D., Aragon, S.R. Shaik, N. and N. Palma-Rivas. (2000)
Comparative Analysis of Learner Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in Online
and Face-to-Face Learning Environments. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research 11 (1):3-28. Lave, J. (1991). Situated Learning in Communities of Practice. Perspectives
on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC, American Psychological
Association. 63-82. Lave, J., and E. Wenger (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate
Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University. Mehus, P. (1995) An Inter-cultural Approach to Literature:
E-mail in the Literature Classroom. International Journal of
Educational Telecommunications 1 (1):85-92. Pea, R.D. (1994) Seeing What We Build Together:
Distributed Multimedia Learning Environments for Transformatiave
Communications. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13
(3):285-299. Rein, G., D. McCue and J. Slein (1997). A Case for Document
Management Functions on the Web." Communications of the ACM,
40(9): 81-89. Rosaldo, R. (1995) Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social
Analysis. Boston: Beacon Press.. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How
Professionals Think in Action. New York, Basic Books. Sherry, L, Billing, S,H., and F. Tavalin (2000) Good Online
Conversation: Building on Research to Inform Practice. Journal of
Interactive Learning Research 11 (1):85-127 Sherry, L., and K.M. Myers (1998) The Dynamics of
Collaborataive Design. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,
41 (2):123-139. Suchman, L. (1995). "Making Work Visible." Communications
of the ACM, 38(9): 56-64. Sumner, T. (1995). The High-Tech Toolbelt: A Study of Designers
in the Workplace, Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '95),
Denver, CO (May 7-11), ACM Press. Sumner, T. and S. Buckingham Shum (1998). From Documents to
Discourse: Shifting Conceptions of Scholarly Publishing., Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI '98), Los Angeles (April 18-23). Sumner, T. and M. Stolze (1996). "Integrating Working and
Learning: Two Models of Computer Support." AI & Society,10
(Special Issue on Hypermedia and Workplace Learning): 70-78. Winiecke, D. J. (1999) Keeping the Thread: Adapting
Conversational Practice to Help Distance Students and Instructors Manage
Discussions in an Asynchronous Learning Network. DEOSNEWS 9(2):1-14. Wolcott, J.R. and J.E. Robertson (1997) The World Wide Web as an
Environment for Collaborative Research: An Experiment in Graduate Education.
The International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 3(2/3):237-260.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
