The five stage model:
Stage 2
'When I discuss online interaction, I acknowledge when wrking online there are three types; interaction with "content" (course material and references), internaction between the tutor and the student (Berge, 2007) and, third, the much wider interaction between groups of peers usually with the e-moderator as the mediator and supporter. It is this third stage that the model focusses on whilst seeking to integrate the other two. (Salmon, 2011: 31)
The chief benefit of using the [five stage] model to design a course with online networking and group work is that you know how participants are likely to exploit the system at each stage, and you can avoid common pitfalls. (Salmon, 2011: 33)
Explanations for stage two -
Many of the benefits of online networking in education and training flow from building an online community of people who feel they are working together at common tasks.[...] from the start of stage 2, e-moderators should seek to create a climate that will strongly enhance the well-being of the online group, based on respect and support for each other, rather than corner-cutting in the service of instrumental personal goals. In this way, intrinsic motivators will gradually emerge, and learning will be promoted. (Salmon, 2011: 36)
[...]e-moderators should create opportunities for socialization, not only into the online group but also to understand how online contributes to learning for their topic, this course, this discipline. [...] In a sense, e- moderators create a special little cultural experience belonging to this group at this time and through discussion and negotiation. This is called a virtual ‘third culture’ (Goodfellow, Lea, Gonzalez and Mason, 2001) (Salmon, 2011: 37)
[...] if plenty of ‘space’ and encouragement is given at Stage 2 for dialogue of all kinds with the group, there is a greater likelihood that productive communities will build up.[...]There is evidence at Stage 2 that individuals struggle to find their sense of time and place in the online environment. Hence the importance of e-moderators enabling induction into online learning to take place with support and in an explicitly targeted way. When opportunities for induction into the online world are taken, participants report benefits to their later online learning.(Salmon, 2011: 38)
We find that online students are very adaptable and able to respond to challenges and new opportunities, and we avoid simplistic views of cultural influence on online learning. Building a ‘third culture’ which values different perspectives and strokes seems the best way (Goodfellow et al., 2001). (Salmon, 2011: 41)
Stage 3
Participants develop a variety of strategies to deal with the potential information overload at this stage. Some do not try to read all messages. Some remove themselves from conferences of little or no interest to them, and save or download others. Others try to read everything and spend considerable time happily online, responding where appropriate. Yet others try to read everything but rarely respond. These participants sometimes become irritated and frustrated. They may even disappear offline. E-moderators need to watch out for each of these strategies and offer appropriate support and direction to the participants. Information overload and time management are much less a problem for those participants who are already well organized, or who rapidly learn to share the workload in teams. (Salmon, 2011: 43)
The temptation at this stage may be to provide some kind of ‘automatic’ answering of frequently asked questions (usually called FAQs). Ng’ambi and Brown (2009) and Ng’ambi and Goodman (2009) report interesting researched examples. It is common for overstretched e-moderators to insist that partici - pants check electronic FAQs before asking online. This may work for technical issues or rules and regulations about the course if a good search programme is provided. However, it is unlikely to inspire appropriate communication around course material and best practice or lay the basis for more in-depth interaction at Stage 4. At this stage, the motivation and enjoyment come from personal and experiential communication. Supportive, formative feedback is motivational and will contribute to modification of participants’ thinking. (Salmon, 2011: 43)
E-moderators should celebrate, give value to and acknowledge contributions to discussion processes and knowledge sharing by participants, and give credibility, authenticity and verification of information offered. Summative feedback and assessment can be introduced at Stage 3, especially if aligned with the online processes and achievements. You may also want to try some voice-based feedbacks – we have found that these can be welcome and effective (Nie, Armellini, Harrington, Barklamb and Randall, 2010). (Salmon, 2011: 44)
Stage 4
At this stage, participants begin to interact with each other in more exposed and participative ways. They formulate and write down their ideas or understanding of a topic. They read such messages from other participants and respond to them frequently and often successfully. (Salmon, 2011: 44)
(Avoid conflict) E-moderators should design for group interaction, create a feeling of presence, but also make it clear that they are not always available, perhaps 'handing on the baton' to leaders of small groups. (Salmon, 2011: 45)
Online forums make
weaving easier to promote than in face-to-face groups, since everything that has been ‘said’ is available in the conference text. The best e-moderators. undertake the ‘weaving’: they pull together the participants’ contributions by, for example, collecting statements and relating them to concepts and theories from the course. They enable development of ideas through discussion and collaboration. Weaving is an active and somewhat time-limited activity that enables full and beneficial participation during active conferencing.(Salmon, 2011: 45)
Summarizing tends to occur regularly but after the main discussion has occurred. A skilled e-moderator needs to know when to weave and when to summarize. E-moderators sum - marize from time to time, span wide-ranging views and provide new topics when discussions go off track. They stimulate fresh strands of thought, introduce new themes and suggest alternative approaches. (Salmon, 2011: 45)
E-moderating is not the same as facilitating a face-to-face group. In Stage 4, it may be necessary to explain this to the participants, especially if they still expect the e-moderator to provide ‘the answers’, although in the contributory world of Web 2.0, this is increasingly less of a problem. At Stage 4, we see participants start to become online authors rather than transmitters of information. (Salmon, 2011: 48)
(1st Example out of experience) Many participants stated a view or gave information and then finished their messages with a question. Several messages from participants and e-moderators summarized and modelled ideas as well as supporting the contributions of others. The designated e-moderator had to do very little. About halfway through the sequence he too threw in a short message based on a question. The sequence closed after a participant commented on how useful the discussion was for the assignment. (Salmon, 2011: 50)
(2nd Example) Although it had an e-moderator, this is an example of a conference where the participants effectively adopted and shared the e- moderating role, with one participant taking the lead. The participants spent considerable time and effort in defining their task and sharing ideas on how to collaborate. One participant adopted the e-moderating role by posting a starter suggestion and then continued to weave together other contributions. He then posted a plan which he later said ‘has now been read by 31 members of the conference, i.e., a majority, without any objection’. He continued to facilitate the discussion throughout and his fellow participants much appreciated his role. This probably contributed later to their negative reactions to the official e-moderator’s well-intentioned but directive interventions. (Salmon, 2011: 50)
Stage 5
[...] technology itself does not lead to independent learning, and that there is much that e-moderators can do to promote and build increasingly productive use of the system. (Salmon, 2011: 53)
CHAPTER FOUR
E-moderating qualities and roles
In the second decade of the twenty-first century, more
students articulate their needs for online learning than ever before, as Berge's
study found, 'students expect to see expertise from their instructors and the
competency to teach online' (2007: 4), and indeed, evaluation oflearning is
increasingly judged on the 'learners' experience'. (Salmon, 2011: 103)
(Selecting e-moderators) I suggest that you try to recruit e-moderators with the qualities from columns
1-2 of Table 4.1. If there are few people available with these abilities, I suggest
you focus on selecting applicants who show empathy and flexibility in working
online, plus willingness to be trained as e-moderators. Before asking them to
work online, I train them in the competencies described in columns 3--4 in
Table 4.1. I would expect e-moderators to be developing the skills in columns
5-6 by the time they had been working online with their participants for about
one year. (Salmon, 2011: 104)
80/20 for E-moderators (
PDF)
So, I
began to ask my correspondents and visitors: “do you know which 20% of our e-moderating work
produces 80% of the results?” What follows is a summary of many ideas based on those years of
feedback.
Here is the ‘state of the art’ for the absolute essentials for successful e-moderating, based on the
minimum intervention. (
Click here for the PDF)
Keeping the pace:
In asynchronous group eLearning, participants will log online at times to suit them, often fitting in
their online time around other events taking place in their lives. Some typical patterns are:
x Weekend only
x Weekdays only
x Only on certain days
x Some will miss logging for a whole week.
x Some log in three times a day.
x No discernable pattern.
Some participants will be quick at getting involved and postings, others slower, often reading before
contributing.
As an e-moderator, even if you make every effort to start and finish cohorts on the same day, and
move them on together as a group, you can expect the spread of work by participants to be over a
number of e-tivies. This results in your having to scan several online activities to ensure that you are
keeping pace with each participant and with the group dynamics.
Techniques for supporting all participants are:
1. Summarising more frequently, enabling faster catch up by participants whenever they log on.
2. Encouraging slower and faster participants, by private email, to reflect on the consequences
for them of being a faster or slower participant.
3. Encourage faster participants to look back on threads they have completed and provide
responses for the slower participants.
4. Encourage revisiting e-tivities after several days for further reflection.
Avoiding E-Moderating barriers
Sometimes what we do gets in the way of responding appropriately to participants’ needs. Here are
some examples of e-moderating behaviours reported that ‘gets in the way’.
1. Gushing praise with little content.
2. Not posting any messages for 3 days without informing anyone or arranging for a stand-in.
3. Responding to every message.
4. Responding with no learning points over a period.
5. Ignoring some participants.
6. Only responding at a surface level.
7. Only responding at a deep level.
8. Being manipulative.
An online message that is cold, far too long, closes off discussion, excludes or demotes participants or
ideas, or that ignores significant parts of the messages of others communicates more than just the
words on the screen. An e-moderator who constantly says “yes well done” (perhaps through lack of
time or options) is soon spotted
How to summarise:
1. Collect all the relevant messages into one document.
2. Thank and praise the participants who contributed.
3. Look for 3-4 key themes from the contributions and precis them in a sentence or three
(maximum).
4. If you wish, highlight individual participant’s contributions that add fresh ideas or look at the
topic in an interesting way.
5. Add your teaching comments or critique, point out omissions, other perspectives or
applications, and make reference to further literature or ideas.
6. Add a short, further example of your own if necessary.
7. Shorten the sentences, delete all unnecessary material.
8. End with congratulations, praise or a positive note of some kind.
9. Add a question or reflection for further consideration, if appropriate.
10. Add further reading or follow up if appropriate (preferably electronically sourced).
11. Post message on the message forum with a really good, short title, on the day you said you
would.
There are some special characteristics that will help groups to self-manage online:
1. Ask individuals to confirm when they have joined in. A simple joining activity in the thread
will leave a trace to indicate that participants arrived. A cross check against a list of
participants will reveal who is late. Designate a participant from each work team to follow up
less visible contributors.
2. State the purpose of the task. The task will motivate the participants. Offer clarification, if
necessary, but allow opportunities for flexible interpretations.
3. Describe how groups will be formed. An element of self selection helps to maintain interest,
but ensure that the method is simply described and incapable of being misunderstood.
4. Set up a thread for each group and let the group know where to locate the thread.
5. Encourage them to post in the right places and keep focused.
6. Describe the form and type of content that the group should produce and where and when they
should post it. Aim to be prescriptive without being too restrictive. Indicate the main issues
that must be addressed.
7. Set out the plenary process in the plenary thread. This can be part of your welcoming message.
8. Ask the participants to review both content (their main focus) and the process. Include setting
up the group, the degree to which they found the task motivating, how they collaborated, their
approach to feeding back as part of the learning points – so it becomes ‘natural and normal’ to
reflect not just their outputs but how they worked together.
