Chapter 4

From a Distance: Teacher Librarian

Training by Distance Collaboration

Arthur Winzenried

Abstract

This chapter presents a case study research over three years into theoperation of a distance education program using Web 2.0 tools tocreate an online collaborative project environment for trainee teacherlibrarians. Charles Sturt University in inland Australia specialises indistance education. The entire School of Information Studies operateson this basis. To achieve high standards and truly global learning, useis currently being made of Web 2.0 technologies — particularly wikisand blogs as part of this program. One particular subject requirescollaborative construction of a Blog or PowerPoint via wikinegotiation by teams of geographically separated students worldwide.This is a very practical exercise in distance communication andcollaboration and one that is very relevant to students in the course,most of whom will become the only staff of widely separated libraryestablishments. One intention in using technology to build ‘commu-nities’ and encourage collaboration across traditional boundaries is togrow confidence among future teacher librarians in the use and powerof technology as a means of developing their own learning commu-nities — to better prepare them for the workplace. Built on a studentportal developed over many years, the new technology is currentlyused by several hundred students from many different nations andcultures who meet as small workgroups on their wikis in order tonegotiate and construct a team project. Based on this three-year casestudy, it does appear that collaborative projects can be moderately

Library and Information Science Trends and Research: Asia-Oceania

Library and Information Science, 69–91

Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1876-0562/doi:10.1108/S1876-0562(2011)002011b006

70 Arthur Winzenried

successful over distance, and that they can play a useful part in the pre-training of educational practitioners — teacher librarians in this case.There is strong evidence that this process works very well in terms ofencouraging positive attitudes towards distance collaboration andinteractive web technologies. It also appears to encourage a feeling of‘global’ community reaching beyond traditional library boundaries.

4.1. Introduction

Charles Sturt University in inland Australia specialises in distanceeducation. In common with several other schools of the University, theSchool of Information Studies teaches primarily in distance educationmode. With the University based on four major and geographically separatecampuses, much of its work generally revolve around distance education. Toachieve high standards and truly global learning, use is currently being madeof a variety of interactive technologies, particularly forums, chat, wikis andblogs as part of this program. While collaborative learning over distance hasbeen tried before, we believe that this example is one of only a few to be usedin the training of teacher librarians (TLs). Although still being fine-tuned,we feel that this sort of task has and will continue to prove highly valuableto the training of TLs and will contribute to their confidence in theworkplace. Our experiences have shown that it is possible to avoid a numberof the problems usually associated with collaborative tasks in the past. Thefocus of the case study was a Masters level tertiary subject investigating theTL’s role as a manager and leader in the school.

4.2. Distance in Australia

Australia has a relatively large landmass, particularly as it relates to itspopulation. Generally, the majority of the population is centred around asmall number of cities, most of these being located on the eastern coast line.Even in these urban concentrations, the nature of settlement is that there issignificant sprawl. Australians do like space around them. The vast majorityof the interior is sparsely populated. While people do live in the rather aridinland regions they are spread over a very wide area and often live onindividual farm (or ‘runs’) many, many miles apart. While the Flying Doctorservice provides medical help to these isolated homes and properties, there isno similar arrangement for libraries. Schooling for children in the remotecommunities is offered by distance — begun in the days of two-way radio

From a Distance: Teacher Librarian Training by Distance Collaboration 71

and continuing into the present of satellite communication. There areschools some of the larger centres — one in South Australia for example,provides a library for its school as well as the local population, a total of 75people in all and 80 km from their next nearest school. Another SouthAustralian example has a library serving a larger community but with thetwo staff travelling 35 km and 20 km each way to work each day.

While research into the distance issue is lacking the implications for libraryand library training are significant. Preparing for this chapter, theopportunity was taken to seek help from Australia’s large online TeacherLibrarian work group, OZ_TL NET, based at Charles Sturt University,NSW. With several thousand subscribers this is a very active community. Inthe absence of other more thorough research the folk were asked for a quickoutline of their situation as regards ‘the tyranny of distance’ and their library.While the response on that short notice was limited (some 42 responses in the7 days available), the results are interesting. They do represent only the tiniesttip of the iceberg with the whole topic wide open to further research. Of thoseresponding, most were from remote regions. Urban library responses wereminimal possibly feeling the issue did not relate to them. Most of thoseresponding were at least 40 km from any other library-public, community orschool. One report from NSW noted their nearest libraries as being 65 and100 km away with contact made once every three years. Another, based inQueensland, had four very small primary school libraries each about 35 kmdistant. On the Eyre Peninsular in South Australia, a community library(combined school and public) was 80 km from its nearest library.

Distance itself is not the only factor affecting Australian libraries. Everyone of the replies, urban and regional, indicated a staff with no more thanone trained TL. All of these folk were working either on their own or withlimited help from non-fulltime assistants. The point was well made by oneurban respondent who noted that while there were several school librarieswithin 1 km, there was not time for contact because of the workload beingcarried by the TL. This sentiment was echoed by several other urban librarystaff. The issue of time isolation may well be as considerable as that ofgeographical isolation. In either case there is very real need for librarytraining in Australia that does provide a strong element of moderncommunication technology; particularly technology that is completelyportable and can be taken into the workplace, urban or rural.

4.3. Related Studies

Distance learning is a growth industry. In 2003 Howell, Williams andLindsay reported on trends within US higher education that were creatingan increasing demand for distance education. Among the trends they noted

72 Arthur Winzenried

were increasing student enrolments, changing student profiles, and students‘shopping around’ for their education. The ubiquitous Internet and itsrelated information technology systems played a large part in this. Anumber of their noted trends have, by 2008 been shown to be correct, andeven to be exceeded in terms of their significance. There is a considerablewealth of literature that considers the multiple aspects of Web 2.0technologies (Anderson, 2007; Berners-Lee, 1999; Shirky, 2008). Whilethere may be some disagreement as to who are the greater potential usersthere seems little argument that the advent of interactional technologies is anaccepted phenomenon across the larger part of the developed world — andeven beyond (Harkin, 2009; Howell, Williams, & Lindsay, 2003; Shirky,2008; Tapscott & Williams, 2006).

With labels such as ‘digital native’ (Prensky, 2001) and ‘Generation Y’(McCrindle, 2003) the current generation of 10- to 30-year-olds isconsidered to have grown up with digital ‘toys and tools’ (Prensky, 2001,p. 1) and so to have accepted technology generally to be a part of their lives.The success of Facebook, YouTube and Twitter tend to support this. Shirkycan envisage a world that is close to becoming a single community in whichthere are new dynamics as millions of individuals participate interactively tolocate a missing mobile phone (Shirky, 2008, p. 4ff). Tapscott and Williams(2006) can consider, most seriously, a world where mass collaboration willcreate a new economy.

Philip has suggested that Generation Y expect that ‘technology will be animportant part of their education’ (Phillip, 2007, p. 1). Largely due to theemerging technology, they will have shorter attention spans and be morelikely to want immediate gratification (Barnes, Maratei, & Ferris, 2007;Prensky, 2001). However, for many observers, this is more thancompensated for in terms of the power that new interactive technologiesprovide with their potential for learning enhancement (McLoughlin & Luca,2002; Rollett et al., 2007).

All of which is fine for those who belong to the ‘now’ generation,however, it is the previous two generations who are mainly involved intertiary distance education today. For these ‘digital immigrants’ (Prensky,2001), the new technologies offer as many challenges as they doopportunities. While learning on the web has its proponents (Byers, 2000;Johnson, 2007; McLoughlin & Luca, 2002; Taylor, 2001) there remain somereal issues for many distance learners (Cookson, 2002; Downs, 1998; Hara &Kling, 2000; Howell et al., 2003; Rollett et al., 2007).

Along with the potential for interaction is a realisation that there is now afirm platform for collaboration. Shirky (2008) explores the anarchic natureof the new world order as it impacts on our daily lives while Tapscott andWilliams (2006) note the new levels of interaction and collaboration and theenormous impact that they are having on global economies.

From a Distance: Teacher Librarian Training by Distance Collaboration 73

In the teaching and learning world this is equally true. While only smallat present, there is a growing body of literature that is exploring potentialfor new collaborations as part of the formal learning process (Lee &Winzenried, 2009; Parker, 1999; Poellhuber, Chomienne, & Karsenti, 2008;Rollett et al. 2007; Winzenried, 2010). Increasingly Web 2.0 tools are beingseen as offering greater potential for the social construction of learningthrough collaborative operations.

4.4. Research Design

4.4.1. Case Study — Data Collection

This particular study is only intended as a first step and grew largely from aneed to update subject material to better meet contemporary needs andcontemporary student skill levels (not always easily compatible). The studyis thus case study based at this stage, on one subject, during two teachingsessions. It is a practical study, based on a desire to investigate the success orotherwise, and the potential for improvement of an exercise in developingcollaborative learning tasks for mainly mature age students involved indistance higher education. Unlike that of Hara and Kling (2000), there wasnot third party observational aspect. Student evaluations were assessedquantitatively and qualitatively through two sessions of study in a singlesubject. Student interactions in asynchronous (chat, forum, wiki and GoogleDocs) and occasionally synchronous (Skype) situations were also analysed.This is the real-world example of a situation where the boundaries betweenthe phenomena and its context are not always clear (Yin, 1994, p. 13).

Data was collected from several sources. The vehicle used for teaching thesubject was in the nature of a knowledge management tool, a workspace onthe internal internet — ‘INTERact’ — that provides mechanisms for‘trapping’ and archiving student interactions as part of their learning. Thismaterial was used by the learners for their learning process and provided arich source of data for this study. Material ‘trapped’ in this way includednegotiations with their teachers and peers in the process of constructing theirassessment item responses as well as the moderated conversations in groupchat rooms, wikis and resource sites. To complement this data, studentsatisfaction surveys, conducted at the end of each teaching session, providedfurther data for analysis. Finally, the students own reflections on theirlearning process were invaluable in terms of providing a personal andrevealing collection of data relevant to the collaborative learning process.

Using both the evidence of the ‘trapped’ knowledge created as part of theonline exercise and some of the final reflections provided by students —again as part of the whole learning process, a number of qualitative findings

74 Arthur Winzenried

have been made. These are tested against data from subject evaluationsurveys, teacher’s subject reports and an independent teaching dynamicreview. By correlating these different data sources a considerable body ofdata can be studied and verified. Two considerations are being tested by thisprocess:

(1) The effectiveness of the specific collaborative task, and(2) The extent to which learners have developed transferable skills in an

online context.

4.5. Key issues

Barnard, Paton and Rose (2007), along with others (Mohssin & Al-Ahmad,2005; Pithers & Twyford, 2000) frequently highlight the role of commu-nications in distance education. Research suggests that the more effectiveand learner focused the communications, the more engaged the learners arein their distance education. Even where psychological or physical distance isconsiderable, student-focused communication opportunities will assistlearners in being positive about their study and recommend it to others(Barnard et al., 2007, p. 2).

Learning is essentially about interaction between learners as well asbetween learners and instructors (quoted in Poellhuber et al., 2008, pp. 45–6;Barnard et al., 2007, p. 3). In the virtual world of distance learning theseinteractions are often difficult or even unavailable. CSU has, in commonwith a number of other institutions, worked very hard to make their distanceeducation program offer learners multiple communication options. Theyconsider it vital that each student be able to communicate with ease bothwith their teachers and with other students. To facilitate this, a workspacesolution has been developed named INTERact. It is web 2.0 based and linksseamlessly a number of critical communications options with necessarylearning resources.

The primary case study dealt with here involved three cohorts each ofsome 130–180 over a period of three years from 2008–2010. Working atMasters Students and from all parts of Australia (itself a rather considerabledistance issue) as well as round the world. Students lived in countries as farafield as Thailand, Cambodia, Hong Kong, Finland, Canada, Africa andthe United Kingdom. Based on Web 2.0 technology, teams of four studentsneeded to discuss their understandings, compare readings and collaborateon a single Blog or PowerPoint end-product that synthesised theirinvestigations. Each team was given access to a team learning space thatcontained a number of communication tools with the recommendation touse the embedded wiki (or from 2009, the option of public domain, Google

From a Distance: Teacher Librarian Training by Distance Collaboration 75

Docs). The teams were created using simple alphabetical selection — viz. thefirst four on the roll became Group 1, the second four on the roll becameGroup 2, and so on. Late enrolments were fitted into groups where membershad dropped out or into new groups as they enrolled. In this manner, theteams were largely randomly selected and thus were unlikely to haveknowledge of each other. No student contact details were shared withparticipants so that their ‘usual’ means of communication was confined tothose tools available on the work space.

On the basis that in their working lives knowledge of presentation anddistance communication technologies would be an important acquisition, akey assessment was the production of a PowerPoint promoting one aspect oforganisational theory as applied to the work of a TL. As collaborationbetween professionals is also considered critical, the assessment was acollaborative one. With all students in the cohort enrolled in distanceeducation mode, this collaboration was necessarily at a distance. Web 2.0technologies in the shape of learning spaces that included wikis offered oneideal way of facilitating this assessment.

4.6. Discussion

4.6.1. Dropout Rates

One early consideration was the dropout rate. In the literature of collaborativedistance learning, this was often mentioned as a concern (Barnard et al., 2007;Byers, 2000; Parker, 1999; Pithers &Twyford, 2000; Poellhuber et al., 2008). Ofthe original 192 students who initially enrolled in 2008 in the subject 159completed successfully. Only three students failed to complete the requiredwork for the subject in a satisfactory manner. From a cohort of 128 in 2009, 2students did not complete. Of the original class enrolment of 192, 21 peoplewithdrew from the subject before commencement of the first teaching week.Reasons for this were generally along the lines of ‘two subjects at a time will betoomuch work as I work full time and have a family to care for’. Inmost cases,these students re-enrolled in the following session.

The actual dropout rate following commencement of the program andtherefore possibly related to the collaborative task, was approximately 7%in 2008. This figure compares well with international results for distancecollaboration programs where dropout rates of between 30% and 68%(Pithers & Twyford, 2000) have been noted. For the 2009 cohort the ratewas nearer 5%. In every case, students withdrawing cited family orworkload reasons rather than specific task related ones. While there mighthave been an element of concern at a collaborative task with unknown‘others’ this was never mentioned and remains an unlikely reason.

76 Arthur Winzenried

Dropout issues did affect performance in a couple of cases, where groupcomposition dropped below three members. Certainly where this happened,individuals were initially concerned and worried that their learning might becompromised. In the event, these fears were dispelled as the task progressed.Based on the interactions in these ‘small group’ cases, experience suggeststhat a group of four is more workable and seen by students as suiting theirneeds. Dropout issues appear to be related to the subject as a whole ratherthan size of group. In the present study, the huge majority of dropout wasbased around the inherent difficulties of distance education (e.g. familypressures, work pressures, moving house, changing relationships, etc.) ratherthan with any task-orientated issues.

4.6.2. Student Satisfaction

Although a concern in some instances perhaps, dropout rates in theprograms under review were remarkably small, especially when comparedwith those of Pithers and Twyford or those of Xenos, Pierrakeas andPintelas (2002). The students own satisfaction with their learning programtend to suggest one possible reason for the lower dropout rates. From thestudent surveys carried out at the end of the 2008 session, 57 of the 68students responding noted that the subject stimulated their learning (forcomparison, 3 strongly disagreed). Fifty-two of the sixty-eight studentsconsidered the support mechanisms to be appropriate and the same numberconsidered that their capacity to communicate effectively had beenimproved. These survey results were encouraging and provided somestatistical support for the more qualitative material generated during thesession in terms of emails and chat from and between students.

In 2009 some 55% of students made specific reference to the value theyperceived in the online collaborative project. Typical of responses in thiscase was one student who reported ‘the group assignment was an excellentopportunity to enhance my learningy and establish a network of other T/Ls’. Another noted their perceived highlights of the subject as ‘working withGoogle Docs and working collaboratively’. (In 2009 and 2010 Google Docswas offered to groups as an alternate to the wiki or as an additional venuewhere students could collaboratively build their group projects). In the sameyear 63% of the students responding to the satisfaction survey agreed thatthe learning task had considerably ‘assisted’ learning (11% did not). Oneissue that was raised was that of time. A precious commodity for distanceeducation (where students are often juggling home, work and study) a smallnumber of students in each year feel that collaboration requires more timethan other forms of study. While positive about the activity, they felt it

From a Distance: Teacher Librarian Training by Distance Collaboration 77

required more time than conventional assessments activities. Typical ofthese is the comment:

I did appreciate the opportunity to work collaboratively withothers, however, felt this aspect took the larger percentage ofstudy time available for both subjects. (2009)

However, while time was an issue for some, the value of the collaborativetask was never questioned.

I really enjoyed the collaborative group assignment. I enjoyedusing new technologies and working with others. The feelingof isolation and being alone as a distance ed. Student were notapparent in this assignment. (2009)

Andy

The collaborative assignment was something new for manystudents and it was very beneficial to be ‘forced’ into this newlearning, to get out of our comfort zones. My group workedvery well together and achieved an excellent result. (2009)

Quite comprehensively, there was positive response to the collaborativetask. Students consistently noted the value of improved interaction witheach other. More than 45% of student evaluation forms for the 2009 cohortreported ‘value’ or ‘usefulness’ as regards the collaborative task. Thecollaborative task was occasionally seen as breaking new ground bystudents. While not actually the case in terms of worldwide distanceeducation (Byers, 2000; Parker, 1999; Poellhuber et al., 2008), students oftensaw the activity as innovative feeling challenged and vitalised by it. Not onlydid their response challenge them but it also generally had a satisfactoryoutcome and thence produced considerable confidence. Being faced with achallenge but one that they could be successful with gave studentsconsiderable satisfaction. Adding new technical skills to their professionallives was seen as desirable if challenging.

4.6.3. Technology and Techno-Fear

As a part of their assessment, each student was required to provide apersonal reflection on the collaboration process. These reflections over-whelming featured the voicing of the learners’ early concerns at the levels oftechnology involved, feelings of concern at these levels and subsequent

78 Arthur Winzenried

appreciation for having been pushed into using them. Typical of these wasone comment:

I had no experience of chat-rooms, had never heard of awiki andknew thatMSNwas something thatmy teenagedaughter seemedto be obsessed with during study time. ... I therefore hadreservationsaboutmyabilitieswithtechnologyandwhetherIwascapable of ‘surviving the steep learning curve’yOnce I had agrasp of how to use these digital devices, I also became aware ofwhatapowerfulcommunication tool theycanbe.Thesubsequent‘conversations’ I engaged in combined with my professionalreading also enlightened me to the importance of developingclear, effective communication skills. (Male student, 2008)

A number of 2008 cohort students voiced similar concerns with what theysaw as ‘new’ technology, this number declined in 2009 and saw no reference in2010. In the example above there appears also to be a clear shift from a concernat technology generally to a perception of the values of that technology incommunicating in the wider world. This indicates a considerable skilldevelopment as well as a skill transfer from study to workplace, and was acommon theme among comments regarding the technologies that this taskinvolved.The student reflectionswerevirtuallyall expressing similar thoughts insimilar languages. An element of pain or stresswas expressed by some, butmostoften accompanied by a thankfulness for having had boundaries extended.

The opportunity to work in groups was painful at first, butbecame a very worthwhile experience as we were able tocollaborate with others using technology which wouldn’t havebeen used otherwise. (2009)

As an indication of reaction to the technical aspects of this task, theexpression ‘steep learning curve’ appeared in 72% of 2008 studentreflections. All but three expressed some initial concern at the levels oftechnology expected by the subject and its assessments. Similarly ‘powerfulcommunication tool’ was a phrase used in 51% of the reflections as part ofthe students summing up of their activities. Perhaps significantly, there wasno mention of technical concerns from the 2010 cohort. In that year, of the36 comments relating specifically to the assessments, only 3 mentioned thecollaborative task. All three were positive.

Technical concerns were not limited only to the collaborative task. Whilethat task relied heavily on an extended technical ability, there was moregeneral ‘concern’ at the technology which the subject required over manyaspects. The 2008 cohort in particular, noted challenges with chat, forumsand the INTERact site generally as much as they did about the use of wikis

From a Distance: Teacher Librarian Training by Distance Collaboration 79

in particular. Across both the 2008 and 2009 cohorts technical ‘fear’ was themost commonly voiced concern in relation to all of the differentcommunication vehicles offered to them. Of lesser concern was the issueof anonymity — group members did not know each other until their firstmeeting in cyberspace with their online introductions. It is difficult to know,on the basis of available evidence whether the concerns expressed wereactually regarding the technology itself or in fact more general issues offacing a task with technology at its centre but with a group of unknown‘others’. Although task-focused, actual communication by the studentsduring the process of the task took many directions. Much of the tasknegotiation took place in the group chat areas while the wikis or GoogleDocs tended to be used for final presentation material negotiations.

Where ‘fear’ or concernwas expressed itwaswith the actualwiki (in 2008and2009) or Google Docs (in 2010) but potentially could have been more directedtowards the Unknown group members almost as much as to the actualtechnology itself. The earlier quote that mentioned being ‘forced’ into ‘newlearning’ might reflect technology just as much as collaboration with threeunknownpeople. Therewere regularmentions of both aspects of the taskwith aslightly higher number of mentions for technology aspects specifically. Furtheranalysis of thiswill be the focus for reviewof the 2011 cohorts but on the basis ofthose being considered here itwould appear that technologywas voiced asmoreof a concern than the unknown collaborators as a general rule.

One aspect that was significant was the change in perceived ‘fear’ throughthe three years. In 2008, technology was mentioned frequently in the samesentence as ‘stress’. ‘Stress is the word’ (female, 2008) said one student. By2010 the words ‘stress’ and ‘fear’ far less frequently and were no longerlinked to technology. Rather they tended to appear in regard to other tasksand the subject in general. Exactly why this change should occur could bethe subject of further research. There is the possibility that students havebecome more ‘techno savvy’ or that our students are growing in confidence.The evidence available at present does little to support either of theseconclusions. Overall, the ‘opportunity to learn how to use a wiki, Skype andGoogle Docs’ (2010) was seen as an attractive if challenging learningactivity. It is this transferable learning that is a key aim of the task set as wellas one of the aspects very often noted by students of the subject.

4.6.4. Skills Transfer

Two aspects of the assessment demonstrated a considerable potential fortransfer of learning. Use of chat rooms, Skype and wiki indicated a highlevel of ability to communicate through those means. Further thediscussions frequently extended beyond the actual assessment task to dailyroutine and even personal life (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: Chat room.

80

Arth

urWinzen

ried

From a Distance: Teacher Librarian Training by Distance Collaboration 81

In 2008 class activity measured to 96% on chat and/or wiki and includedsome students who did not go on to complete the subject in that year.Figures for 2009 and 2010 were similar at 93% and 95%. Frequency alsoshowed a readiness of students to use these tools on a regular basis. Studentswho reported their experiences frequently made mention of the tools theyused and the skills they personally had developed whilst using them. The‘group assignment was helpful in developing communication, collaborationand ICT skills’ one student reported in 2009, while another noted that‘many of the tools we were introduced to will be useful’. These were notisolated cases. In 2009 32% of the student evaluations noted the value of‘new skills’ or ‘new learning’ that they noted as helping them develop theirprofessional lives.

The most useful part for me was the collaborative project. Forthe first time in this course I felt connected and had people tobounce ideas off, discuss and share. Distance ed[sic] is veryisolating. My deep learning improved as did my enjoymentwith the interaction. (2009)

Andy

Assignment 1: this collaboration exercise was very rewarding,building and consolidating new skills, learning to commu-nicate and producing lifelong learning skills. Undoubtedly oneof the most rewarding tasks of the course. (2009)

It would be interesting to be able to delve deeper into exactly what thefirst student meant by ‘deep learning’ but there is clear connection herebetween the task set, its process and a student satisfied with the value of theirlearning program. Transferable skills are being noted by many students. In2009 they was mentioned specifically by 25% of those responding to thestudent evaluations and mentioned frequently in both chat and wikidiscussion. Parker has noted the essential aspect of communication indistance education (p. 13) and it has been the aim of CSU to work very hardtowards that end. Student responses like those above are vital buildingblocks on which to build further study programs.

4.6.5. Collaboration

The combination of student satisfaction and transferable skills is a powerfulone. In the Australian context with its challenge of distance, suchsatisfaction with new communication skills and professional learning’s is

82 Arthur Winzenried

even more vital for the ongoing success of the student and the ongoingsuccess of training programs designed for them. To facilitate theircollaboration each group was provided with a personalised workspacewithin the INTERact framework (and from 2010 the option for a GoogleDocs space outside the INTERact frame). Workspaces included forum,chat, group email, resource page, wiki and blog options. In addition therewere a selection of optional tools including an announcement facility, siteeditor and calendar options (see left hand column of Figure 4.2).

Among the specific ‘technologies’ provided to the cohorts for completionof the task, chat, email, resources and forums were well used and rarely seenas challenging. The sample resources page (Figure 4.2) indicates veryextensive use for a group of three students over the time span of five weeksallowed for the task. Several of the resource sections contain more than 10items and the range of sections indicates a quite extensive planning andreading effort. Similarly chat was used but all groups extensively. Clearlystudents felt at ease regarding the use of their spaces and took considerableadvantage of all the different tools on offer. In providing team chat roomsfor the students, the premise was that learners should rely heavily on theirteam rather than an instructor, and should use the team dynamic to buildthe project rather than spend time trying to discover what the instructorwanted and then reproducing that. Social interaction was considered to bebest relatively unsupervised by the teachers in order to achieve a higher levelof student participation and open negotiation.

The chat rooms were used extensively by all groups in 2008 and 2009 withSkype growing in popularity during 2009 and 2010 as another, not necessarilyexclusive, option. Chat continued to be used extensively in addition to Skype.The sample in Figure 4.1 (provided with the permission of those involved)demonstrates the level of communication groups achieved and the widevariety of this communication. Ranging from red wine to technical difficultiesand from resources to construction of the finished assessment item, studentswere able to interact openly and quite happily on a number of different levels.Minimum outside (i.e. teacher) intervention in their chat allowed students tofeel comfortable and use the resource as they wished. While a new medium formany students it was a technology that did not attract comment or ‘fear’.

One rather interesting summation came from a student reflection after theproject was complete:

I enjoyed using the chat room forum where one had no need toworry about appearance of body language. Postings can bemoreconsidered than casual conversations. (Female student, 2008)

The forum option existed for the cohort as a whole rather than as agroup resource. Accordingly it was the general teaching area and a focal

Figure 4.2: Resources.

From

aDista

nce:

Teacher

Libraria

nTrainingbyDista

nce

Colla

boratio

n83

84 Arthur Winzenried

point for the more general issues of presentation, basic task requirements,referencing issues and similar. Again, while there was a level of technologyinvolved in locating and using the forum, students did not express orexhibit concern with this technology. Within the individual group workspaces, the Resources area was generally where the different progressivedevelopments of the PowerPoint were stored. As each member of thegroup made their contributions, a new copy was saved. Some groups choseto use Google Docs as their online editing workshop and then save thefinished product to the Resources folder. A number of groups, as in thesample provided in Figure 4.2, took advantage of the Resources folder tostore related articles they had found as well as material for otherassessments.

4.6.6. Flexibility in the Learning Space

In using the learning space flexibly, the students justified the early faith ofthe subject site planners in their belief that by providing multiple spacesoffering a range of tools the learning of the students would itself be moreflexible and more empowering. In the case of the Resources tool, as withmost of the other tools, once the students’ confidence grew they were quicklyfinding many uses for the different tools to help with their studies in thisspecific subject, and occasionally for other subjects as well. Figure 4.2illustrates the way this area was developed in one particular group. Typicalof this area is the range of different resources created or collected,involvement of the whole group and their teacher and flexible use ofdifferent formats.

The learning space, its wiki (Figure 4.3) and Google Docs, weretechnologies that we considered students needed to become familiar within conjunction with collaborative teamwork, and in a non-geographicallyconnected context-an attempt at true cyberspace interaction.

Often working in isolation from other library professionals on a dailybasis as noted earlier, it was considered important to offer some degree ofexperience and hopefully, develop some degree of confidence in usingcurrent communication tools.

From the university’s viewpoint, teaching in a distance mode usingmultiple interactive tools offers far greater flexibility in both teaching andlearning. Equally importantly it offers students higher levels of indepen-dence and personalised learning. Peer interactions are less threatening andgenerally more immediately accessible to students.

One contributing factor was certainly the students’ lack of experience interms of wikis. One particular student remarked later that she had not everused PowerPoint before, let alone a wiki. Figure 4.3 shows part of one

Figure 4.3: Wiki.

From a Distance: Teacher Librarian Training by Distance Collaboration 85

group’s discussion using their wiki). In a major way, that issue was at theheart of the philosophy of this subject-an immersion in technologies thatcould be used in libraries by librarians. Given the different levels of skillsthroughout the student cohort, the wikis, etc. were used to varying extents.It must be said however, that by the halfway mark of this assessmenttimeline in 2008, the wikis were in daily use by all groups. The content ofthose wikis showed a high level of relevant content, as well as considerablecritical thinking in terms of how the content could be used, and how muchof it was related directly to the finished product. Activity in 2009 and 2010echoed this trend with all 2010 groups active in Google Docs (about 60%) ortheir wikis well before the halfway mark.

4.7. Results

For all the above reasons, this subject will in the foreseeable futurecontinue to operate using as many interactive tools as can be usefullyincorporated into the students learning site. Introduction of further optionsin terms of choices of blog and Google Docs would seem to present at leasta prima facie case for relieving some of the stress and improving generalstudent satisfaction. One further factor in the distance equation is that ofinstructor report. There was consistent though infrequent mention acrossall three years of the study highlighting the importance of the instructor(s)being available to help and advice. Perhaps significantly, less than 5% ofstudents completing subject evaluations mentioned teacher support in

86 Arthur Winzenried

connection with the collaborative task. While this could be taken either asa positive or as a negative, the mention that was made was consistent interms of the recognition of personal support. As one of the teaching staffput it:

My anecdotal evidence indicates that the structured approachto the development of technological skills (e.g., email, chat,then to Skype, etc.) aided the overcoming of techno-fear that anumber of students encountered at the beginning of thesubject. They commented that they did not feel alone and thatsupport was available, whether it was for technical typesupport or assistance with group, or membership problems.Knowing there was structure to their learning aided theirconfidence. (2010)

Where students felt adequately supported in terms of teaching staff inputon forums and chat sessions, Skype, and so on, there was clear evidence ofhigh levels of student satisfaction. Where such a provision was perceived tobe absent, students were concerned and perhaps confused. One of the morecritical comments of the process in 2009 noted the lack of communication inthis regard but suggested it appeared more to do with their fellow learnersnot communicating sufficiently.

I found myself wondering at times whether there was alecturer in this subject. There were hardly any forum postingsand I attribute this to lack of encouragement and interest byfellow students. (2009)

It does need to be pointed out perhaps that the 2009 cohort producedseveral thousand forum postings, a fairly typical proportion from theteaching staff themselves. The perception though is significant. It clearlymakes the point that teaching input is vital, perhaps as vital (and maybemore so) in the distance mode as in the face-to-face mode. Students gainconfidence as well as information form a solid teaching support as wellas from communication with their peers (called ‘peer tutoring’ by onestudent in 2010). They appreciate their instructor’s efforts but peerinteraction is even more vital. The critical issue for staff is timelysupport.

One significant student comment cited above highlighted the usualisolating nature of distance learning and saw the collaborative task as of realvalue in providing contact with other students. Equally there is a clear casefor consistent and timely contact with instructors.

From a Distance: Teacher Librarian Training by Distance Collaboration 87

Excellent and professional feedback given at all times, all emailsand forum posts were answered promptly and constructively.(2010)

Innovative and supportive ‘extras’ provided by teaching staff were highlyvalued. Supporting podcasts, for example, were welcomed by students.

The podcasts provided by [the lecturer] on the assignmentwerey very helpful. (2010)

Availability of teaching staff for advice and support was seen asimportant, with shortcomings in that regard very much of interest to thestudents. In distance transactions it has already been noted that otherstudies show this need for a significant support network (for example,Howell et al., 2003; Poellhuber et al. 2008). Our specific study found thesame. Student satisfaction is enhanced by significant staff input in anencouraging, friendly and timely manner. Such interactions need to becarried out in a flexible learning context that is designed to assist withcommunications as well as to build transferable skills.

In this particular case it is clear that students, while perhaps initiallychallenged by the technology, are dealing exceptionally well with distancecollaboration and, even more importantly, transferring their experience totheir workplace. What is very clear from this study is that those involved inthe process find it easy and valuable to use the different communicationtools. The quality of this communication is high and student confidence withit is also very high. Quality of communication is a critical factor in thesuccess of any interactive process, and perhaps more critical in one thatinvolves virtual interactions rather than face-to-face ones (Li, 2007, p. 594).

Given the discussion above, the end result of this current study is verymuchaconfirmation of the effective planning and implementation of the collaborativeproject. For the future, there is a strong case formoreof the samebut inherent inthe conceptualisation of the task there is the imperative to continuedevelopment in both communication and the collaborative tools. In 2011 thereis the intention to offer student’s access to Google Sites as one new alternative.The value of the Google Docs arrangement in 2010 is still being evaluated. Onpaper it offers a considerable cost saving as does Google Sites. The use thirdparty tools generally does need to be evaluated further.

4.8. Conclusion

From the evidence of student evaluation reports, their personal reflectionsand their correspondence with peers and teachers, there is a strong case that

88 Arthur Winzenried

the collaborative task under review is effective in teaching new skills,developing confidence and offering students what they perceive as a valuablelearning experience. Students are reporting being challenged, but also that,on review, that those challenges can be met and result in a valuable learningexperience. While there is definitely (always?) room for improvement, wehave found that offering a collaborative exercise over distance can besuccessful. It does require great flexibility; multiple-choice of tools is anadvantage and continuous interaction with students from the teachers isneeded but the end result is a high level of student satisfaction as regardsnew skills learned and new challenges met successfully.

There is strong prima facie evidence that this task significantly builds self-efficacy in distance education learners. Students consistently comment onnew skills developed and new avenues of communication opened to them,avenues that they can relate to their future working lives. In creating ourcollaborative task we had high hopes as regards skill portability. Both on thebasis of our previous experience and a generally supportive literature, weconsidered that experience in the form of our learning spaces might suggestto many of the students that there were uses for this technology in their ownworkplaces or the places where they might find future employment.

Experience with interactive technologies in the teaching of informationmanagement and teacher librarianship has shown that there is considerablepotential for the use of wikis and blogs — particularly in terms of their abilityto facilitate collaboration over distance. The technology offers learnersopportunity to collaborate and build team projects, regardless of national orcultural boundaries. Significantly, several students included in their finalreflections that they were establishing classroom wikis at their schools as ameans of increasing interaction between students, teachers and the library.Another noted that experience with the new (for them) communication toolshad ‘strengthened my position as leader and negotiator’ (Male student, 2008).

Integrating Web 2.0 tools into a digital hub (Lee and Winzenried, 2009,p. 151) it is possible, perhaps for the first time, to construct a truly globallearning program. One key aspect in our experience of the internet-borneWeb 2.0 technology is the potential for meeting in the ‘neutral’ area ofcyberspace and also being able to communicate on several levels andactually join in the production of a single product. It offers collaborationwhilst keeping otherwise intrusive ‘differences’ of nationality, culture, etc. ata minimum. Experiences with this task do suggest though that there is noadequate case for distance learning being ‘cheaper’. In the light of currentdiscussion in Australian media (The Australian, 26/1/2011) our experiencesupports that of Herrington and others.

Associate Professor Herrington said the emergence of face-to-face online learning through software such as Skype and

From a Distance: Teacher Librarian Training by Distance Collaboration 89

virtual classrooms is making the differences between the twoteaching methods irrelevant. The flexibility that onlineprovides digitally savvy students is increasingly attractive, hesaid. ‘y I wouldn’t want to see a difference in funding whereonline was then seen as second-rate’, Dr Herrington said. (TheAustralian, 26/1/2011)

While in our own case, any sort of digital duplication of face-to-facepractice is avoided, the nature of our collaborative task and its supportingstructures do, from the evidence emerging, appear to be providing a veryviable, valuable and attractive distance learning experience, one that isequally successful to many current face-to-face options. However, asHerrington points out, it is not an attempt at cost cutting. Collaborativeonline distance education may be one response to what McConachie andDanaher call the ‘massification of higher education’. Certainly it is aresponse to growing numbers seeking an online, in their own time learningformat. However, rather than leading to homogenisation and standardisa-tion, as some distance learning might appear to do (McConachie &Danahar, 2005, p. 5), in our specific case, there is a rather significant trendtowards individualisation and transferability that argues for far more long-term learning and development of self-efficacy that transcends specific tasksand routines.

For success with distance collaborative projects there needs to be verysignificant investment on the part of the hosting institution. One of the keyfactors in the success of our own collaborative exercise was availability ofteaching staff and also a very significant commitment to advancedtechnology that works. Both of these are cornerstones to our own distanceeducation practice. We suggest, further that both play a vital part in anysuccessful distance program.

Our intentions for this activity are perhaps best echoed and affirmed inthese words from a student reflection:

My learning journey through this subject has been useful notonly in my professional life, but it has given me theopportunity to grow as an individual. I now feel moreequipped to see problems as opportunities. Most importantlyI’ve decided to try and ‘think outside the box’, to be creative inhow I think and act, and hopefully inspire those around me tofeel the same. (Female student, 2008)

For a subject titled ‘The Teacher-Librarian as a Leader’ this is a verysatisfactory summary by one of our students. Most encouraging.

90 Arthur Winzenried

References

Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for

education. Accessed on April 21, 2009. Retrieved from http://ioptimizerss.com/

Documents/What%20is%20Web%202.0%20-morebuyertraffic.pdf

Barnard, L., Paton, V., & Rose, K. (2007). Perceptions of online course

communications and collaboration. Online Journal of Distance Learning Admin-

istration, X(IV, Winter). Accessed on April 21, 2009. Retrieved from http://

www.westga.edu/Bdistance/ojdla/winter104/barnard104.html.

Barnes, K, Maratei, R., & Ferris, S. (2007). Teaching and learning with the net

generation. Innovate, 3(4). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/

index.php?view¼articleandid¼382

Berners-Lee, T. (1999). Weaving the web. New York, NY: Orion Business Books.

Byers, A. (2000). Interaction: The key to successful distance learning. Proceedings of

EDMedia 2000, Montreal, Canada, June 26–July 1. P. (reprint) 1–9. Reproduced

by and available from editlib.org

Cookson, P. (2002). The hybridization of higher education: Cross-national

perspectives. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,

2(2). Accessed on April 21, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/

irrodl/article/viewFile/66/136

Downs, S. (1998). The future of online learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning

Administration, 1(3). Accessed on March 18, 2009. Retrieved from http://

www.westga.edu/Bdistance/ojdla/fall1998/downes13.html

Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2000). Students’ distress with a web-based distance education

course. Information, Communication and Society, 3(4), 557–579.

Harkin, J. (2009). Cyburbia. London: Little, Brown.

Howell, S., Williams, P., & Lindsay, N. (2003). Thirty-two trends affecting distance

education: An informed foundation for strategic planning. Online Journal of

Distance Learning Administration. Accessed on April 21, 2009. Retrieved from

http://www.westga.edu/Bdistance/ojdla/fall63/howell63.html

Johnson, D. (2007). Dangers and opportunities: Challenges for the libraries in the

digital age. Accessed on April 21, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.

doug-johnson.com/dougwri/dangers-and-opportunities-1.html

Lee, M., & Winzenried, A. (2009). A history of the use of instructional technology in

schools: The lessons learned. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational

Research, Melbourne.

Li, S.-C. S. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making:

A functional perspective. Small Group Research, 38, 593–615.

McCrindle, M. (2003). Understanding generation Y. Principal Matters, 55, 28–31.

Accessed on July 1, 2009. Retrieved from http://innovationfeeder.files.wordpress.

com/2007/08/understandinggeny.pdf

McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2002). Enhancing the quality of the student experience

online: Revisiting the imperative of learning as socially based. Proceedings of the

HERDSA Conference, research and development in higher education: Quality

conversations, Perth, Western Australia. Accessed on April 21, 2009. Retrieved

From a Distance: Teacher Librarian Training by Distance Collaboration 91

from http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/conference/2002/papers/

McLoughlin.pdf

Mohssin, I., & Al-Ahmad, N. (2005). The role of information technology in building

up knowledge economy producing and using information in libraries and

information centres. Journal of Social Sciences, 1(4), 203–210.

Parker, A. (1999). Interaction in distance education: The critical conversation.

Educational Technology Review, 15, 29–44.

Phillip, D. (2007). The knowledge building paradigm: A model of learning for net

generation students. Innovate, 3(5). Retrieved from http://www.innovate

online.info/pdf/vol3_issue5/The_Knowledge_Building_Paradigm__A_Model_of_

Learning_for_Net_Generation_Students.pdf

Pithers, B., & Twyford, K. (2000). Collaborative activities in a traditional self-paced

individualised distance learning setting. Proceedings of EDMedia 2000, Montreal,

Canada, June 26-July 1, p. 91–109.

Poellhuber, B., Chomienne, M., & Karsenti, T. (2008). The effect of peer

collaboration and collaborative learning on self-efficacy and persistence in a

learner-paced continuous intake model. Journal of Distance Education, 22(3),

41–62.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).

Accessed on February 28, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.albertomattiacci.it/

docs/did/Digital_Natives_Digital_Immigrants.pdf

Rollett, H., et al. (2007). The Web 2.0 way of learning technologies. International

Journal of Learning Technology, 3(1). Accessed on April 21, 2009. Retrieved from

http://inderscience.metapress.com/media/2pwkvprtrg7g6xxtwc2l/contributions/f/

x/5/f/fx5fuw48r3x8jcc7.pdf

Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody. New York, NY: Penguin.

Tapscott, D. M., & Williams, A. (2006). Wikinomics. London: Portfolio.

Taylor, J. (2001). Fifth generation distance education. e-JIST, 4(1). Accessed on

March 29, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/e-jist/docs/

vol4no1/Taylor.pdf

The Australian. (2011, January 26). Online flexibility has rising appeal. The

Australian, Higher Education Supplement, p.1.

Winzenried, A. (2010). Visionary leaders for information. Wagga Wagga, Australia:

Centre for Information Studies.

Xenos, M., Pierrakeas, C., & Pintelas, P. (2002). A survey on student dropout rates

and dropout causes concerning the students in the course of informatics of the

Hellenic open university. Computers and Education, 39, 361–377.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.