PROCESO EDUCOMUNICATIVO

7.2.2.1 Whiteboard Functionality Used

In Trial 1, five functions (type, draw, erase, select colour and change page) were used in virtually every session (see Appendix 6). Text and postscript files were imported prior to the lesson and occasionally during the lesson. Other tools and facilities were used quite rarely and, in the focus groups, students suggested these were not needed or that they might be hidden behind drop-down menus.

The range of functions used in Trial 2 was similar, but the World Wide Web was used as a new source of shared text. This caused some difficulties, which are discussed in Section 7.2.2.4.

7.2.2 2 Student use of the Shared Space

In Trial 1, the amount of student use of the shared workspace varied. In 62% of the sessions observers characterised student use of the whiteboard as "fi*equent". However, there is a noticeable difference between courses (see Appendix 6). There is not enough evidence to attribute the differences to one cause. Possible reasons are differences in teacher confidence, learning objectives, languages, levels and teaching method. The differences could, of course, result fi’om observer unreliability. However, two opposed categories (as opposed to a graduated range) were used, in an attempt to obtain clear distinctions, and the observers met regularly and observed one another's sessions, as stated in Chapter Six, section 6.10.1. The observers' view of student use of the shared space does not accord with the views of participants. Using the shared workspace appeared to change students’ perceptions of roles and relationships; they viewed their relationships with tutors as “mwe equal” than in a fece-to-face class. This was strongly stated and agreed by students across the different courses. They cited their access to the shared workspace as a reason for this. This is intCTesting, since teachers still directed students’ use of the tool and in many classes made more entries in it than the students did. However, Fulford & Zhang (1993b) suggest that it is the expectation of activity, not the actual level of their own activity, that affects students' perceptims of a learning experience and keeps them involved. To explain it, they use the analogy of a sports game, vriiere participants must stay alert throughout, in case they receive the ball.

7.2 2.3 Use of Text Editor (nte)

Screenshots and observation showed that Nte was used for importing longer text files, to be read on

screen, aloud or silently. The pointer was used to refer to the text during discussion. Words and phrases that were not understood were marked. L&iderlining was not possible, so the teacher and students developed alternatives. This is shown in Figure 7.7; the teacher has double-spaced the text to enable keyboard charactCTS to be used underneath words, as a substitute for underliningNotes were made at the side of the text, recording vocabulary and othCT points. Like the vriiiteboard, it was also used to exchange messages, particularly location information or instructions fi'om teacher to studoits. Figure 7.7 illustrates these points.

Students wrote mainly short sentaices or phrases. With this tool, too, it was common for the teacher to create a table-like structure so that students could fill in different columns simultaneously (see example in Appendix 7). The editor was also used for making corrections (moving text to a more appropriate place or correcting spelling/vocabulary). Corrections were made by both tutor and students; the mœe flexible

control mechanisms of nte, compared with wb, made it possible for corrections to be made by editing, rather than annotation, by both teacher and students.

When they switched from the whiteboard to the text editw. Trial 2 students stated in the focus groups that they missed being able to draw and underline but valued the fact that they could save the text. They also liked being able to edit one another's text and, especially, the feet that the teacher could correct theirs. The tutors noted that the shared editor, with its smaller font, enabled a longer text extract to be displayed in the window than with wb. They felt this enabled studaits to relate elements of the text to one anotho- more easily and allowed them to scan a larger amount of text. However, the smaller font was generally not liked; teaches and studaits wanted also to be able to "zoom in".

The text editor's greater flexibility also led to some navigation problems (e.g. Figure 7.7: "nom sommes ici" [we are here]), particularly when students had been working on different parts of a text. This was noted by observers and discussed in the Trial 2 focus groups; one of the expert observers describes the students' problems:

"This is, fo r example, if a student is asking fo r something in the text, they are not necessarily on the same page as the tutor, whereas (in the past) when they want to ask about something, when they move onto the page, everyone is on the same page. That was the main reason became sometimes last time they took a long time. They were very frm trated looking fo r something in the text"

The teacher usually chose not to display the participant information or document map, preferring the extra space that this left for writing notes and vocabulary (see Figure 7.7)..

7.2.2 4 A Third Shared Workspace - Web Browser Experiment

In the second term of Trial 2, the tutor began to explore and experiment. As he discovered the wealth of French language material available on the World Wide Web, the teacher wanted to import this into the whiteboard and/or text editor. This was fimstrating, since the text editor did not preserve images and images could only be imported into the whiteboard as postscript files. It was also confusing to be forced to confront the issue of file formats.

Not surprisingly, the teacher sought a way to avoid the conversion process. Having used Netscape as an individual user, the teacher was convinced that it should be used as the shared space in language lessons and eventually used it as such in two of the sessions. The tutor would tell the students which web page to open and togetha* they would browse from there. In focus groups, the students' opinions about using Netscape as a shared viewer were mixed. One found it interesting because it gave access to new and topical resources. However, the consensus was that it was not successful, mainly because of uneven delays in loading pages and the difficulty of verifying that all were looking at the same thing at the same time. Much time was wasted trying to resolve whether all participants were looking at the same page. This experimoit underlined the importance of integrating the software tools that teachers use. It also showed that a shared display alone is not enough; as a minimum, some means of common reference is needed.. The experiment also reinforced the need for long field trials. It was only after many weeks that this teacher began to experiment. This suggests that in order to find out about “mature” use of a new

technology long trials are needed. The final study, described in Chapter Seven, shows the teacher gaining confidence and modifying teaching methods over an even longer period.