Literacy at a Distance - What the Learners Have to Say.

Daniel Larocque
Consultant and Project Manager
Réseau INTERACTION Network, Inc

Sceptical enthusiasm abounds when it comes to a potential relationship between literacy and web-based technologies. The Web is becoming an important communication tool but will learners actually be interested? Are they not supposed to type before they can even think about going on the Web? Although there is interest in better understanding the potential use of Web technologies for literacy, there have been very few studies in this area.

In the interest of getting a better picture of what learners experience when they complete learning activities on the Web, the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) as well as the National Literacy Secretariat (NLS) initiated a project called AlphaRoute. Phase 2 of AlphaRoute consisted of two interrelated strands:

1) a development strand that strived for both the production of creative learning activities and an innovative web-based environment designed specifically for adult literacy learners;

2) a research strand, which aimed to clarify the experience of learners with this environment. The workshop presents the results of the research strand.

The research centred around two basic questions, as proposed by MTCU:

1) At what stage of their learning can literacy students begin to be independent in an online environment?

2) What supports do they need in order to do so?

Given that this field of study is relatively untouched, it was decided that a qualitative methodology would be most appropriate. The goal was to provide a rich and holistic description of the learning experience. Intent on listening to the learners in their own voices, we modelled the specific design after a heuristic approach. In the end, 46 learners aged between 18 and 35 completed a minimum of 24 hours of online activities and participated in a series of 7 interviews.

Learners reported benefiting in many ways. These acquisitions are grouped into four categories: cognitive, computer/telematics, metacognitive/knowledge transfer, and socio-cognitive. In terms of cognitive skills, learners noted many of the components involved in the mechanics of literacy: spelling, punctuation, verbs, pronouns, writing sentences, etc. In terms of computer/telematics, learners reported a variety of new skills such as the ability to start and exit both a computer and a web-based environment, comfort at navigating through a web-site and even general maintenance of computers and web-pages (such as how to unfreeze a web-page). In terms of metacognitive skills, learners spoke of an awareness on how skills learned in AlphaRoute could be applied in other situations. Finally, in terms of socio-cognitive skills, learners remarked how they could support each other or work with each other. They noticed that they could benefit from skills others had acquired, whether these related to a specific content (i.e. spelling a given word) or to computer skills (i.e. printing a document from a web-site).

Overall, learners exhibited a variety of independent behaviours. In the data, we see four main types of independent acts: the ability to navigate (functional independence), feeling good about learning (emotional independence), developing means to learn (cognitive independence), getting results and transferring learning results to other situations (meta-cognitive independence).

Lack of independence and ambiguities were also reported. For instance, some had functional struggles throughout the project. They had problems distinguishing the role of the technical help-desk and that of the mentors even in the latter weeks of the project. Certain functions were not clear even though they had had previous explanations. Learners from levels 1 and 2 in particular needed more reminders and functional support at various times during the project. Others showed a lack of cognitive independence. Certain concepts had not been learned and could not be transferred to other situations. Some learners, again from level 1, had problems formulating their own opinions. They would turn to their fellow learners to offer critical feedback about the site ("I would say like J said.").

During this piece of research, we also witnessed behaviour that is more ambiguous. In these cases, it is difficult to ascribe independence or the lack thereof. The use of sound on the site (i.e. words and sentences narrated with the click of an icon) is one example. For levels 1 and 2 learners, sound was particularly important. Many reported they could not function without it. However, one level 2 learner remarked that she concentrated even more when, one day, she did not have sound. In this case, the lack of sound allowed her to become more independent.

At times, learners turned to the local facilitator or the mentor to have explanations on what they considered complex words, sentences or activities. On the one hand, turning to someone else may be a sign of dependence. However, facing a more complex activity, becoming aware of it, making the critical decision to look for help, identifying the most appropriate person to turn to and taking the step to resolve the problem can also be perceived as signs of independence. Other such actions are documented as being double-sided: depending on the perspective we take, they can either be acts of dependence or independence.

The Concept of Independence

Ironically, looking for signs of independence made us question whether the concept was comprehensive enough. While independence is an attractive concept, the researchers for AlphaRoute could not dismiss other types of behaviour as having an equal chance of contributing to the learning process. The framework of learner control was then identified as a potential alternative. The initial framework, described by Garrison and Baynton (1987), is comprised of three elements: independence (the ability and the freedom to choose one’s own goal and direction), power (the ability to take responsibility for the learning process) and support (the ability to choose pertinent resources in order to carry out the learning process).

Following the work of Lebel (1989) we suggest that the third element, support, be further divided into: learning support and administrative services. This division would clarify even further the needs of learners and, consequently, the steps to be put in place for any future implementation. In this final pyramid:

independence is the freedom to choose,

power is the responsibility to act,

learning support is the availability of services to help in all facets of the learning process (cognitive, metacognitive, affective and motivational),

and administrative services are the tools to oversee the logistical, administrative and organisational aspects of the delivery.

Forms of Support

Apart from the design (instructional and graphic) of the site, there are other key components of learning support. For example, nearly all learners mentioned the quality of the relationship with the mentors. For some, the mentors were the highlight of the program. The mentors helped on four levels:

1) Cognitive (orienting, helping with content, clarifying, etc.),

2) Meta-cognitive (linking experiences, helping learners become aware of their learning, encouraging the transfer of knowledge to the learner’s environment and community, etc.),

3) Affective (recognizing the challenges of the learner, treating learners as individuals with their specific needs, valuing where each learner is and where he/she wants to be, helping to create a community of learners, etc.),

4) Motivational (encouraging learners to continue, recognizing their persistence, confirming their successes, etc.).

Onsite support was also seen as vital in helping learners sign on, orienting learners to the program, helping them make links between their goals and the program, and offering a helping-hand when needed. As well, technical assistance, accessible via a toll-free line, was noted as critically important. Learners, onsite facilitators and distance mentors commented on how much they needed quick, reliable and friendly access on demand.

Finally, learners helped each other learn. While some chose to work more on their own, others benefited from the interaction with other learners. Learners within a same site helped each other out with technical functions and, to some extent, with content (i.e. the spelling or meaning of a word). Learners in different sites and different levels formed communities-of-interest (mainly through the Café, a web-based conference system): they identified each other as having similar interests, exchanged writings, offered critical yet friendly and supportive feedback on each other’s work, and debated opinions.

At the end of the project, many participants asked if they could stay online. Every one of them offered ideas to enrich the site and make it better. A recurrent theme is that the site should grow to have more activities, to cover more topics and to allow more users. The challenge in the years to come will not be to encourage learners to sign on but to have realistic expectations, to manage the growth and to ensure quality in both the web-site itself and the delivery. A full copy of the research report (122 pages) is available via the AlphaPlus web site at http://www.alphaplus.ca.

Retour à la rubrique Actes du Congrès / Back to the Proceedings Page