Murphy, K. L., Epps, M. L., & Harvell, T. J. (1999, Spring). Proaction vs. Reaction: Interaction and Group Dynamics in Telecommunications Courses. The Texas Technology Connection: Journal of the Texas Association for Educational Technology Proceedings Edition, 6(1), 32-34.

In this paper we examine the interplay between interaction and group dynamics necessary for learning in telecommunications classrooms. We also identify the key components of proactive and reactive interaction in a group project-based learning environment. While investigating several Web-based applications to be used in a subsequent Web course, students in a graduate course also identified key instructor and student roles and developed a set of guidelines for proactive telecommunications learning environments. 
 

As the Web becomes a dominant force worldwide, doing group work via telecommunications becomes more possible. The Web is used both as an adjunct to face-to-face and distant-delivered instruction as well as the primary mode of communication in higher education. Interaction in distance education typically occurs between the learner and the content, the learner and the instructor, the learner with other learners, and the learner with technology (Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994; Moore, 1989). Harris (1998) identifies three major categories of "telecollaboration" activities via the Internet: interpersonal exchange, information collection and analysis, and problem solving. Group project-based learning in telecommunications settings combines all three of these categories and sets the stage for potential problems with group dynamics. Group dynamics problems frequently arise from acting reactively, i.e., discovering a problem in the midst of the project and attempting to reorganize the project in order to address the problem.

This paper discusses how group members can be proactive rather than reactive in a telecommunications environment. Proactive learning environments involve advanced planning and preparation and having a contingency plan ready to intercept difficulties before they surface, along with appointing leadership and giving the group leader authority. Drawing on the contributions of Johnson and Johnson (1994) and others toward group dynamics, this work identifies key components of proactive and reactive interaction and group project-based work in higher education telecommunications classrooms.

In this paper, the telecommunications classroom is defined as a collaborative learning environment in which the exchange of information that occurs is mediated by telecommunications (e.g., computer-mediated communication, the Web, interactive videoconferencing). Such classrooms tend to be more learner-centered than in the traditional classroom, where teachers are at the center of action and attention. Norton and Wiburg (1998) posit that "collaborative learning requires students to enter the culture of teaching. Thus, novices benefit from the expertise of fellow students, while experts strengthen their knowledge and skills through the act of sharing their expertise." In collaborative learning environments, teachers teach for the most part indirectly, by reorganizing students socially and designing appropriate tasks (Bruffee, 1993). Therefore, understanding group interaction and dynamics becomes essential for proactive planning and acting in collaborative learning environments for both the teacher and the student.

This paper is the result of investigations of a graduate class at Texas A&M University. The students themselves examined various Web-based applications to be used in a subsequent Web course, and then developed guidelines for using and maintaining the tools (Murphy, Harvell, & O'Donnell, 1998). During this process, the identified key instructor and student roles and developed a set of guidelines for proactive telecommunications-based group projects.

The graduate class combined face-to-face and interactive compressed videoconference sessions supplemented by computer conference via FirstClass^TM. The students made recommendations to the instructor for which Web tools to use in a subsequent Web-based class. They investigated four tools and recommended three of them:

• Basic Support for Cooperative Work (BSCW) - a shared work space that enables students to write and edit collaborative documents as well as share graphics with others
• WWWBoard - a Web discussion board that allows students to engage in asynchronous discussions that are threaded and thus easily organized
• Easy Web Group Interaction Enabler (EWGIE) - a chat room that allows students to engage in asynchronous (real time) chats with others and to use its whiteboard capabilities

• poorly identified deadlines
• lack of ongoing communication
• differing philosophies among members
• "lazy" students

Table 1: Roles for instructors and students in proactive group dynamics

Proactive Instructor Roles	Proactive Student Roles
establish the guidelines define the objectives and timeline for group projects monitor progress of the groups and of the individual members facilitate interaction and collaboration provide mentoring and guidance	get to know other group members  establish a group contract establish group goals and objectives  identify roles of the group members  maintain group dynamics  troubleshoot problems  report progress to instructor

 

Small group activities that can be accomplished in telecommunications classrooms are limited only by imagination. (See Student Projects at http://disted.tamu.edu/~kmurphy/sprojs.htm for a combination of individual and small group projects developed in telecommunications classes at Texas A&M University.) Such projects include:

• discussing readings in which the students themselves take turns moderating the discussions
• writing chapters collaboratively along a theme, culminating in an "online reader"
• developing real-life telecommunications projects and building Web pages to document them
• developing training modules for others to follow

• establish common behavior guidelines
• establish interaction and communication protocols
• identify member roles
• develop contingency plans

Harris, J. (1998). Curriculum-based telecollaboration: Using activity structures to design student projects. Learning and Leading With Technology, 26(1), 6-15.

Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1994). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Murphy, K. L., Harvell, T. J., & O’Donnell, T. (1998, May). Interaction on the Web. Paper presented at the NAU/Web 98 Conference, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. Available online: http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~nauweb98/papers/murphy.html

Norton, P., & Wiburg, K. M. (1998). Teaching with technology. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Uhlfelder, H. F. (1997, April). Ten critical traits of group dynamics. Quality Progress, 30, 69-72.

Karen Murphy