Online Learning and Teaching with Technology

Case Studies, Experience and Practice

David Murphy, Rob Walker, Graham Webb

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135382698
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Bildung
• Subtopic: Bildung Allgemein

In the 21st century technology has become an essential part of teaching and learning. This manual provides practical advice on teaching in a wide range of technologies, including the internet and multimedia packages. Using case studies to illustrate the key concepts, this book aims to promote student learning and understanding, and show educators how to use technology to motivate learners and encourage productive interaction.

Section 1

Student Interaction Issues

Chapter 1

FLAME WAR

Case reporter: Mike Robertshaw

Issues raised

The issue raised by this case study is conflict in an online environment (flame war). Particular issues include whether it is appropriate to manipulate student conflict to meet course aims, and what is the most effective means of resolving online conflict.

Background

U123 is a distance education course that teaches about the Internet to around 150 off-campus students in Hong Kong. Nearly all students use English as their second language and students are working adults studying part time. As an introductory course newly added to the university’s curriculum it attracts a diverse collection of students from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds. Both sexes are well represented in each presentation. Mike, the course developer and coordinator, had worked in distance education for over 10 years. While his area of specialization is maths his interests have grown to include the Internet generally and its uses in distance education in particular. Course content is provided mostly in hard copy units although some is presented through the course Web site. All other communication, including course-related activities, is via the Internet. The course has unmoderated newsgroups for course-related activities such as debates and announcements, as well as for non-course related advice.

Part 1

I was delighted at the apparent success of my experiment in facilitating interaction in a distance education environment. Use of the Internet had given students easy access to one another for the first time. Students were beginning to form communities and develop a sense of belonging that is difficult to create with individuals who usually only meet in face-to-face tutorials every five to six weeks.

After an initial period for test messages, students were informed by e-mail that, to avoid excessive ‘noise’, they must only send messages to the mailing list that directly related to one of the official debates or to a topic sanctioned by the lecturer. Students were instructed that other messages should instead go to the appropriate newsgroup. The code of conduct (published in the course guide and on the course Web site) included the statement: ‘Treat others as you would like to be treated.’

Early in the course a small group of students attempted to establish a student Internet Association (IA) and I agreed that they could post messages to the mailing list to publicize meetings and minutes. This decision was communicated to students at the beginning of the course and in the first three months of the course the IA sent half a dozen messages.

During this period, however, other students did not pay attention to the instructions about using the list and there were regular complaints to the list about this behaviour! I had opted to censure offending students through direct e-mail rather than through the list, although regular reminders about the expected behaviour were sent to the list.

The following exchange started during a weekend (the names here being student ‘nicknames’, which preserved the anonymity of participants – the students did not know with whom they were interacting). Following one IA message to the list posted during the weekend a student named Tony replied with a strongly worded complaint about the IA messages, which he saw as ‘repetitive abuse [of] this mailing list’. Mary, one of the IA students, replied to Tony on the list explaining that permission for IA to use the list had been obtained and objecting to the tone of his message. Tony misinterpreted Mary’s reply by reading it as a personal rebuke rather than a simple statement of fact and an expression of opinion. This was a classic example of the reader of an e-mail injecting tone into the text that didn’t appear to be justified from the content. Tony rejected her explanation in a message to the list using ‘shameful’ to describe Mary’s actions.

At this point John joined in to try to placate Tony through the list while at the same time indicating that Tony had overreacted. Tony interpreted this as an attack and an attempt to get him to shut up. Tony rebutted John’s comments and accused him of arguing against free speech. John and several other students then counterattacked by pointing out that Tony was now himself misusing the list. On the Monday morning I discovered that war, or ‘flame war’ as it is called on the Internet, was in full swing, with about 30 messages sent to the list mostly directed at Tony. Most of the messages were very long and aggressive. In addition, I had a number of e-mails sent directly to me complaining about the general abuse of the mailing list plus one from Mary who had clearly been upset by the public attack on her. What should I do?

What do you think were the main reasons for the development of the flame war?

Could anything have been done differently to prevent it from happening?

What do you think the teacher will do?

If you were in this situation, what would you do next?

Part 2

I replied to the direct e-mail messages indicating that I was aware of what was happening and sympathizing with Mary, but pointing out how easy it was for e-mails to be misinterpreted. As part of the course is concerned with ‘netiquette’ and flame wars I was tempted to take this opportunity to let students experience how such exchanges can grow out of control. In addition, students were for the first time publicly demonstrating passion and willingness to challenge another’s opinions. I gave into temptation and allowed the exchange on the list to continue without any direct interference from me on the mailing list or any attempt to calm the participants. I hoped that the flame war would demonstrate to students the need to be careful in preparing e-mail messages to be sent to a public forum.

The pace of the war increased as each new attempt by a student to placate either or both parties resulted in a new attack, and so the war widened.

By mid-week the flame war appeared to be dying down in the discussion group, mainly because Tony had changed his form of attack. He ‘mail-bombed’ two of the students, including John. This involves sending many long messages containing gibberish to the students’ accounts. These filled their accounts and prevented any other messages from being received until the messages had been downloaded and deleted – a time-consuming task. Tony had attempted to make his latest attack anonymous, but John had sufficient technical expertise to be able to trace the attack back to Tony.

John e-mailed me, complaining about Tony and demanding action. At this point I decided that the attacks had gone too far and intervened directly. I e-mailed the list reminding students of my decision to allow IA to use the list, reminding them of the rules for using the list and requesting any further discussion to continue in the general newsgroup, if at all. I also e-mailed Tony directly asking him to stop ‘mailbombing’ students and to stop sending messages to the list that did not relate to the debates.

Tony refused to cooperate and on the list accused me of taking sides. He argued that he had the right to use the list to defend himself in the face of personal attacks. I reassured him in a direct e-mail message that I was not taking sides, but that he and the others were all guilty of misusing the list. Our exchange continued with his messages appearing on the list and my replies going to him directly. In the meantime the original flame war on the list restarted with the other students condemning Tony for the ‘mail-bombing’ and for attacking me. I e-mailed each student directly, indicating that the best way of stopping the flame war was for students not to respond to Tony’s messages.

By this time I was convinced that Tony was enjoying being the centre of attention. I was receiving more direct complaints from students about the noise on the list and about my apparent failure to respond publicly. Several students expressed concern about participating in the course debates, as they feared becoming the subject of a flame war themselves. Certainly, most students’ contributions to the debates became relatively non-controversial and participation in the current debate fell rapidly. In fact, the flame war had become so bad that I had to delay the introduction of the next subject for debate as I felt that students would not be willing to join in given the current atmosphere.

What would you do at this stage?

How does this Internet-based conflict differ from conflicts between students in face-to-face environments?

Do lecturers need to be seen by all students to be publicly censuring ‘unruly’ students?

Part 3

It had become clear that Tony was not going to stop using the list to attack other individuals on the course and that the mailing list was in danger of losing its effectiveness as a means of debate. Through the different mailing lists on online education I had read of similar situations in which conflicts has arisen in course-related Internet channels. I found most of the discussions difficult to relate to as nearly all involved comparatively small numbers of US students within a culture very different to that in Hong Kong. I was reluctant to post my own problem for advice – perhaps from a sense of guilt that I’d deliberately let the situation develop to its current level. Certainly my experience in an on-campus environment was not particularly helpful. In a face-to-face situation it usually only took my presence to calm students to the point where at least the ‘shouting’ stopped.

I checked with the Registrar as to what action, if any, could be taken by the university if Tony continued his activities. The administration admitted that it had not considered this type of scenario and had no immediate strategy. I found myself having to search through the existing regulations for some means through which I could apply pressure to anyone who refused to end the flame war. As the use of the Internet in courses is not specifically addressed in regulations we finally decided that if necessary the regulation forbidding any student from hindering the study of another student could be applied, particularly if the ‘mailbombing’ continued.

In determining how to proceed I felt that there was a need to place the events into context with all of the students, as much of the passion had arisen from messages written in haste and under the protection of electronic anonymity. For Tony I decided that since reason was apparently not working and my direct involvement was not calming him down it was time to use the threat of disciplinary action; however, this threat should not be directed only at him since, although he was the main, he was not the only protagonist.

I sent a message reminding everyone how easy it was to misinterpret e-mail messages written in haste and how the machine interface can sometimes change an individual’s behaviour. I also explained that intentionally disrupting study could be interpreted as a disciplinary offence and that the flame war and ‘mailbombing’ had disrupted the smooth presentation of the course.

It had the desired effect on the students as a whole – the tone of messages improved and the flame war ended. Tony stopped his aggressive behaviour but later withdrew from the course without ever making another contribution to any of the communication channels.

In the end-of-course feedback many students referred to the flame war as making them realize the importance of carefully wording messages to public forums on the Internet and of not jumping to conclusions about any malicious intent in messages from others. Some students commented that the flame war had been the only really interesting student exchange during the course! Many students, however, admitted that they had found the public attacks on individuals so intimidating that they were now reluctant to participate in public Internet exchanges.

How well was the situation handled?

Would you have handled the situation differently?

What are the implications for your own teaching that can be taken from this case?

Case Reporter’s Discussion

The case concerns my attempt to encourage students to engage in open debate – an activity most would consider to lie at the core of undergraduate learning. I wanted to provide students with the means to interact with each other that they would otherwise miss in a distance education environment where students rarely meet face to face. By not intervening in a series of angry online exchanges between students I was not only able to provide them with direct experience of part of the course, but was also able to encourage them to abandon their reluctance to challenge others publicly.

The account raises a number of issues that most academics will face at some time:

• Was this major disturbance to the educational environment justified (in that it provided a demonstration of one topic and also overcame the passive nature of students)?
• Does the use of Internet technology introduce any unique features into such conflicts?
• What form should a teacher’s intervention take in a virtual conflict?

Debate between students is clearly a justifiable aim in any course. When students challenge each other’s perceptions, individuals often realize the real strengths or weaknesses of their own beliefs or understanding. It is also inevitable that some exchanges may get heated; however, lecturers should only deliberately promote passionate debate when they know how to control it quickly before tempers are lost and ‘fists fly’. Certainly the situation should not be allowed to interfere with the smooth, planned presentation of the course. Neither should matters be allowed to deteriorate to the point where students are engaging in personal attacks rather than academic debate. One of the ‘rights’ that students can expect is an open, respectful, tolerant and safe environment in which to learn. Indeed, as witnessed in this case, when students perceive that no such environment exists, they will not ‘take chances’ or test their partial understandings for fear of being ridiculed. Any group therefore has to balance the need for security (feelings, values) and the need to confront and challenge ideas (see Heron, 1999).

In this case study I had not really thought through the consequences of letting the flame war continue without intervention. While I had prepared and publicized a code of conduct it clearly had minimal influence on what occurred and I needed to resort to official measures to control the situation. If Tony had continued with his attacks, or if others had undertaken further revenge attacks, I would have found myself having to enforce the official position, which may have caused even greater resentment among the students. What started as a minor disagreement between a small group of students could have become a major disciplinary event. One important lesson to learn from this is the speed with which such a situation can develop in an online discussion gro...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Contributors
• Introduction
• Section 1: Student Interaction Issues
• Section 2: Teaching and Assessment Issues
• Section 3: Planning and Development Issues
• Section 4: Policy Issues
• Conclusion
• Further Reading
• Index