1  

How  am  I  learning  to  scaffold  a  

synchronous  online  professional  

development  course?    

 

 

 

 

Elspeth Hennessy

Dublin City University 2011

Supervisor: Dr. Margaret Farren

 

  2

Table of Contents

1.   Chapter 1 – Introduction  ............................................................................................  10  1.1   Introduction  .........................................................................................................................  10  

1.2   My Context  ..........................................................................................................................  10  

1.3   My Learning in DCU  .........................................................................................................  10  

1.4   Background  to  my  Research  -­‐  Professional  Development  E-­‐Learning  in  the  

Irish  Tax  Institute  ........................................................................................................................  11  

1.5   Recognising my Values  ......................................................................................................  14  

1.6   My Research Question  ......................................................................................................  14  

1.7   Structure of this Dissertation  ...........................................................................................  15  

2   Chapter 2 – Literature Review  ...................................................................................  16  2.1   Introduction  .........................................................................................................................  16  

2.2   E-­‐learning  Continuing  Professional  Development  ................................................  16  

2.3   Synchronous  e-­‐Learning  –  Web  Conferencing  ........................................................  18  

2.4   The  Importance  of  Learner  Training  and  Support  ...............................................  20  

2.5   Scaffolding  ...........................................................................................................................  21  

2.6   Designing a Web-based Tutorial  .....................................................................................  26 2.7   Conclusion  ............................................................................................................................  31  

3   Chapter 3 - Methodology  .............................................................................................  33  3.1   Introduction  .........................................................................................................................  33  

3.2   Evolution of Research  ........................................................................................................  33  

3.3   Action Research  ..................................................................................................................  36  

3.4   Data  Collection  and  Data  Analysis  ..............................................................................  38  

3.5   Validity and Rigour  ...........................................................................................................  40  

3.6   Ethical Considerations  ......................................................................................................  40  

3.7   Limitations of the Study  ....................................................................................................  41  

3.8   Conclusion  ............................................................................................................................  42  

4   Chapter 4 - Implementation  ........................................................................................  43  4.1   Introduction  .........................................................................................................................  43  

4.2   Background  ..........................................................................................................................  43  

4.3   Cycle One  .............................................................................................................................  46  

4.3.1   Plan  ...................................................................................................................................................  46  4.3.2   Act  .....................................................................................................................................................  49  4.3.3   Observe  ...........................................................................................................................................  55  4.3.4   Reflect  .............................................................................................................................................  59  

4.4   Cycle Two  .............................................................................................................................  60  

4.4.1   Plan  ...................................................................................................................................................  60  

  3

4.4.2   Act  .....................................................................................................................................................  60  4.4.3   Observe  ...........................................................................................................................................  62  4.4.4   Reflect  .............................................................................................................................................  72  

4.5   Reflection on my Research  ...............................................................................................  73  

4.6   Rigour and Validity  ...........................................................................................................  74  

4.7   Conclusion  ............................................................................................................................  76  

5   Chapter 4 – Conclusion  ................................................................................................  77  5.1   Introduction  .........................................................................................................................  77  

5.2   My Claim to Knowledge  ...................................................................................................  77  

5.3   Impact  on  my  Personal  Development  .......................................................................  78  

5.4   Impact  on  my  Professional  Development  ................................................................  78  

5.5   Potential  Significance  for  my  Organisation  .............................................................  79  

5.6   Suggestions for Future Research  ....................................................................................  80  

References  ..............................................................................................................................  81  

 

  4

Appendices Appendix A About the Irish Tax Institute

Appendix B Extract from MNA Survey 2011

Appendix C Extract from MNA Survey 2010

Appendix D Questionnaire

Appendix E Plain Language Statement

Appendix F Informed Consent Form

Appendix G Finance Bill 2011 Seminar

Appendix H Revenue Audits and Revenue Powers Seminar 2010

Appendix I Reflective Journals

Appendix J Live Online Seminar Evaluation

Appendix K Live Online Seminar Email Feedback

Appendix L List of Captivate Slides and Web-based Tutorial Interactions

Appendix M Questionnaire Results

Appendix N Correspondence with Critical Friend

Audio and Video (AV) Appendices AV Appendix A Web-Based Tutorial (first version)

AV Appendix B Pilot Group Suggested Improvements – Evelyn

AV Appendix C Pilot Group Suggested Improvements – Judy

AV Appendix D Pilot Group Suggested Improvements – Úna

AV Appendix E Pilot Group Suggested Improvements – Carol

AV Appendix F Pilot Group Suggested Improvements – Angela

AV Appendix G Pilot Group Suggested Improvements – Maeve

AV Appendix H Silverback Screen Recording Usability Test - Evelyn

AV Appendix I Silverback Screen Recording Usability Test - Judy

AV Appendix J Silverback Screen Recording Usability Test - Úna

AV Appendix K Silverback Screen Recording Usability Test - Carol

AV Appendix L Silverback Screen Recording Usability Test - Angela

AV Appendix M Silverback Screen Recording Usability Test – Maeve

AV Appendix N Web-Based Tutorial (second version)

AV Appendix O Video of Validation Meeting with Colleagues (27.06.2011)

  5

Figures and Tables Figures Figure 3.1 The effect of ontology and epistemology on research

Figure 3.2 Action Plan (McNiff 2010, p69)

Figure 4.1 Screenshot of slide 18 – The Chat Facility

Figure 4.2 Screen Capture Usability Test – Úna

Figure 4.3 Updated Web-Based Tutorial

Figure 4.4 Questionnaire Findings

Figure 4.5 Validation Meeting with Colleagues

Tables Table 2.1 Evolution of the Notion of Scaffolding

Table 2.2 Usability Factors for Web-based Tutorials

Table 4.1 I am a novice computer user

Table 4.2 I am an expert computer user

Table 4.3 I have previously participated in a live online seminar

Table 4.4 The audio quality of the web-based tutorial was good

Table 4.5 The screen recording video quality of the web-based tutorial

was good

Table 4.6 The speed of the audio was at an appropriate level of

instruction

Table 4.7 The speed of the screen recording video was at an appropriate

level of instruction

Table 4.8 The audio and screen recording video of the web-based tutorial

were well synchronised

Table 4.9 The use of text captions was good

Table 4.10 The audio and text captions of the web-based tutorial were well

synchronised

Table 4.11 The colour schemes used in the web-based tutorial were

consistent

Table 4.12 The screen size of the web-based tutorial was ideal for viewing

Table 4.13 Menu control of the web-based tutorial was convenient

Table 4.14 The table of contents was convenient

  6

Table 4.15 The content was easy to understand

Table 4.16 The use of interactive simulations was beneficial, Once the

interactions were completed the next sections displayed quickly

Table 4.17 The objectives of the web-based tutorial were clear

Table 4.18 The web-based tutorial was effective in helping me to

understand how to participate in a live online seminar

Table 4.19 The web-based tutorial was an efficient way to learn how to

participate in a live online seminar

Table 4.20 Watching the web-based tutorial would reduce the need to

contact the live online seminar provider with technical questions

  7

DECLARATION PAGE

Signed Declaration

I hereby certify that this material, which I now submit for assessment on the

programme of study leading to the award MSc in Education and Training

Management (eLearning) is entirely my own work and has not been taken from

the work of others save and to the extent that such work has been cited and

acknowledged within the text of my own work.

Signed & dated:

  8

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my colleagues in the Irish Tax Institute for all of their support and

assistance, as I carried out my research. I would especially like to thank the research

participants, in particular Úna, Angela, Evelyn and Joanne.

I am also very grateful to my critical friend Maeve for all of her advice and the valuable

feedback she provided.

I offer my sincerest gratitude to my dissertation supervisor Dr Margaret Farren for her

invaluable help and advice.

I would also like to show my gratitude to my classmates, in particular to Anne.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends, family and Nick for their support and

patience.

  9

Abstract This dissertation details how I am learning to scaffold a synchronous online

professional development course. Online professional development courses are

becoming increasingly popular for professionals with cost, travel and time constraints.

Synchronous e-learning, via web-conferencing, has emerged as a viable alternative to

traditional face-to-face education, as it allows for just-in-time feedback and

communication in real time. My employer, the Irish Tax Institute, currently offers its

members the option to participate in synchronous online professional development

courses, streamed using web conferencing software. Through my research of the key

conceptual theme of scaffolding, I apply the knowledge I have learned to the creation of

a web-based tutorial, designed to support inexperienced learners, and those with poor

information technology (IT) skills, participating in synchronous online professional

development courses.

The research was carried out using an action research approach. The web-based tutorial

was created, refined and evaluated over two action cycles. When creating the web-based

tutorial, I was guided by the literature surrounding the design and usability of web-

based tutorials. I also applied my knowledge of scaffolding, which I had learned,

through researching relevant literature over the course of the study. The study

participants evaluated the web-based tutorial, using a questionnaire, and the results

indicated that the web-based tutorial was clear, easy to understand, and usable. The

findings also suggested that participants found it to be an effective and efficient learning

tool.

My research was initially guided by my value of empathy and my desire to educate.

Through the implementation of the research, the importance of scaffolding learners

emerges. My own learning is evident in the creation and evaluation of the web-based

tutorial and I can thus claim that I am learning to scaffold a synchronous professional

development course.

  10

1. Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.1 Introduction This is a practitioner-based action research study into how I can improve my

professional practice. It is an account of how I answered my research question ‘How am

I learning to scaffold a synchronous online professional development course’. In this

chapter I introduce my professional and educational context. To provide some

background on my research question I discuss the introduction of synchronous online

professional development courses by the Irish Tax Institute. I establish how my

educational values influenced my choice of research question and how, through the

research process, I intend to use these values as guiding principles. The final section of

this chapter outlines the overall structure of the dissertation.

1.2 My Context I am currently working as a professional development co-ordinator with the Irish Tax

Institute and my responsibilities include the administration and co-ordination of

continuing professional development (CPD) courses for tax professionals. When I

commenced working with the Institute, they had begun to look into ways of facilitating

e-learning for their students and members. Over the past two years my role has

expanded, in that I now have primary responsibility for the facilitation, production and

release of e-learning professional development courses. Prior to being employed by the

Institute, I had worked in the information technology (IT) industry as a computer

support analyst. The experience I gained in that role has been invaluable to me in

researching and negotiating e-learning technologies.

1.3 My Learning in DCU I have always had an interest in education and this is what originally prompted my

move from my role in IT to professional development. This also led me to consider

applying for a Masters in Education. When I initially expressed an interest in applying

for the DCU Masters (MSc) in Education and Training Management (e-learning) I was

very fortunate as my employers felt that my completing the course would benefit the

Institute as they expanded their e-learning services. Completing the MSc in Education

  11

and Training Management (e-learning) has been a very beneficial experience for me.

While I was learning by doing in my e-learning role in work, the Masters opened my

eyes to a whole new world of collaborative e-learning possibilities. There were a

number of areas that were of special interest and importance to me, both in my role as a

practitioner and to me personally, and which I have drawn upon in completing this

dissertation. Learning about new technologies enhanced my e-learning authoring skills,

while learning about usability and accessibility helped me to understand how to

competently design web-based artefacts with the end-users and learners in mind. I also

found the holistic approach to introducing e-learning into an organisation, as advocated

by Rosenberg (2006), very enlightening. Learning about the philosophy and theory of

education was immensely valuable to me. Personally it was an area that I was always

keen to discover more about. As a practitioner it has been invaluable to appreciate how

learning theory is implemented in e-learning environments. I believe that the use of

reflective journaling has also benefited my practice. It has given me the opportunity to

critically reflect on my actions, and to think about my actions and my learning from

new perspectives.

The Masters course also introduced me to practitioner centred action research, living

educational theory, as advocated by Whitehead (1989), my chosen methodological

approach. Action research prompts the researcher to ask how ‘they can improve what

they are doing’ and offers a practical means by which researchers can improve their

practice and their workplace (Ibid). Action researchers theorise their practice and use

their educational values as living standards of judgement against which to judge their

research claims (McNiff 2010).

1.4 Background to my Research - Professional Development E-

Learning in the Irish Tax Institute The Irish Tax Institute is the leading professional body for taxation affairs in Ireland. Its

4,500 membership comprises Associate of the Irish Tax Institute (AITI) Registered Tax

Consultants, barristers, solicitors and accountants (Irish Tax Institute 2011) (Appendix

A). One of the primary roles of the Institute is that of education. Through its AITI &

Technician Member of the Irish Tax Institute (TMITI) qualifications the Institute has

been educating tax professionals for over thirty years. On qualifying as an AITI

  12

Registered Tax consultant or as a Tax Technician, professionals are required to maintain

their professional competence through completion of CPD. Completing a minimum

amount of CPD became formalised for Institute members in 2010. My department

arranges and co-ordinates structured professional development classroom and e-learning

courses that can be availed of by our members and other tax professionals.

The Institute introduced professional development e-learning courses for a number of

reasons. Offering online professional development courses provides members with a

cost-effective and convenient way of completing their CPD requirements. This is

especially important for members in the current economic times. A member needs

analysis (MNA) survey (Appendix B), created and sent via Survey Monkey

(http://www.surveymonkey.com/) in March 2011 assessed members’ needs regarding

the professional services offered by the Institute. Current economic conditions have led

to many companies cutting down the amount of funding available for training and

professional development courses for their staff and of the 535 respondents, 44.1 per

cent cited financial constraints as a barrier to attending classroom professional

development courses. 23 per cent of respondents cited time out of the office as a barrier

to attending classroom courses and 15 per cent specified that a lack of courses in their

geographical location impacted on their attendance. Online courses are a suitable

alternative for those with financial, travel and time constraints as they are less expensive

than classroom courses and can be accessed from members’ homes or offices. An MNA

survey, carried out in January 2010 (Appendix C), also created and sent via Survey

Monkey, found that convenience was the primary reason that 77.1 per cent of

respondents favoured online professional development courses, and cost effectiveness

was cited as the second primary factor. My review of the literature in Chapter two, will

also show that cost, travel and time constraints are major factors influencing the uptake

and provision of e-learning in professional development case studies.

Online courses are becoming an increasingly popular alternative for those carrying out

CPD. Along with the Irish Tax Institute, professional bodies such as Chartered

Accountants Ireland (2011) and Certified Public Accountants (CPA) (2011), and

professional development training providers such as Omnipro (2011), are making more

and more online courses available to accommodate their membership and customer

base. The Irish Tax Institute is a forward looking representative body and is committed

  13

to keeping up-to-date with new trends and technologies to provide efficient and cost-

effective services for its membership. Besides the convenience and cost-effectiveness of

e-learning professional development, case studies have shown that online courses can

be an effective means to learn and maintain competency. I will elaborate on this in

Chapter two.

The Institute initially introduced asynchronous e-learning courses that could be

accessed anytime and anywhere by CPD learners. Over one year ago the Institute

launched live online seminars, synchronous professional development courses, as an

alternative to attending classroom courses. While online attendees, or participants, have

to ‘attend’ at a particular time, they have the benefit of being able to submit questions

live to the presenter and clarify any issues they are having trouble understanding. Live

online seminars take place in real time and are broadcast from classroom events using

the web conferencing software, Cisco WebEx. ‘WebEx combines desktop sharing

through a web browser with phone conferencing and video, so everyone sees the same

thing while you talk’ (Cisco WebEx 2011).

The MNA survey 2011 indicated that for the most part respondents who had

participated in an online course were happy with their experience. However, a small

percentage indicated that their experience was poor (Appendix B). As I will explain

further in Chapter four, feedback from synchronous course participants indicates that

some experience difficulties joining live online seminars and getting their audio

connected. Others are unaware of how to navigate WebEx and how to use the

interactive features. My concern is that those members who are participating in live

online courses for financial or geographical reasons have little experience using web

conferencing technologies, and that this is negatively impacting upon their online

learning experience. It is the responsibility of the professional development staff to

ensure that this does not happen. While expert lecturers and practitioners deliver the live

online seminar content, the professional development staff co-ordinate and facilitate live

online courses. We are the point of contact for online learners with any queries,

questions, or technical problems.

  14

1.5 Recognising my Values From its inception, my choice of research question was influenced by my educational

values. However, ironically, it took some time for me to recognise my values myself.

Whitehead (1989) advised that sometimes examining what you are not doing in your

role as a practitioner can help to identify your educational values. I have always aspired

to be an educator and on reflection I realised that my role as a professional development

co-ordinator made me question my right to ascribe to any educational values, as I do not

directly educate others. By reflecting on my practice and on my background, and to a

great extent, discussing and exploring these reflections in validation meetings, my

values emerged.

My interest in education and desire to teach, which I had not practiced to any great

extent, was the starting point. Through my limited experience training co-workers,

providing technical support and giving mathematics grinds, I believed that to educate

others you must first identify and empathise with their problems. You can then put

yourself in their shoes and explore ways in which to assist them. While studying for the

MSc in Education and Training Management (eLearning), I had experienced times

when I was unable to understand what I was being taught. These experiences were

upsetting and frustrating, but my lecturers and classmates assisted me. They scaffolded

my learning, helping me to understand and achieve what I could not do on my own.

Reflecting on this, I recognised that my values inspired me to do the best I could to

assist and support online learners having difficulties participating in online professional

development courses. The first step was to truly empathise with learners by attempting

to understand their needs and the problems they were experiencing. I could then look at

ways to assist them and provide them with the appropriate supports so that they could

overcome their difficulties. In this study, I research the theory of scaffolding along with

the other major conceptual themes to discover how I can learn to scaffold learners

participating in synchronous online professional development courses (live online

seminars).

1.6 My Research Question My research question stemmed from the concern that I was not doing all I could to

assist and support online learners. It asks ‘How am I learning to scaffold a synchronous

  15

online professional development course’. For the purposes of this study I investigate

how to apply the knowledge I have learned through my research, to the design and

creation of a web-based tutorial. The objective of the web-based tutorial is to teach

inexperienced learners the steps involved in joining and participating in a live online

seminar. It aims to enable them to master the procedural tasks involved so that they are

free to concentrate on the seminar content and their professional development. Through

carrying out my research I intend to convey how I have used my values as guiding

principles and how they can be used as living standards against which my practice can

be judged.

1.7 Structure of this Dissertation In this chapter I have related the development of my research question through an

examination of my context, the background of the study and through recognition of my

educational values. Chapter Two establishes the conceptual framework of the

dissertation by examining the relevant themes in the literature, e-learning CPD,

synchronous e-learning, scaffolding theory and web-based tutorial design. Chapter

Three introduces the methodological framework of my research and discusses my

chosen methodology, practitioner-based action research as advocated by Whitehead

(1989). Chapter Four details the implementation and evaluation of my research question

and in Chapter Five I discuss the significance of my research and I identify suggestions

for further research.

  16

2 Chapter 2 – Literature Review

2.1 Introduction In this literature review, I will outline the conceptual framework that underpins my

research by examining and analysing existing literature on the themes relevant to my

research question. My research question asks ‘How am I learning to scaffold a

synchronous online professional development course?’. The question is asked in the

context of a professional body providing synchronous e-learning as a means by which

professionals can undertake their continuing professional development (CPD). I

examine the increased use of e-learning to provide CPD for professionals and explore

the expansion of synchronous e-learning. By examining case studies I identify areas in

which some learners may not be well supported in e-learning environments. In response

to this concern, I examine the scaffolding notion and its evolution since being applied to

learning environments that integrate both traditional face-to-face and e-learning

approaches, commonly known as blended learning environments (MacDonald 2008). I

look at ways in which scaffolding has been applied to blended learning environments

and review the suggested best practice guidelines to follow when designing a software

scaffold. The final section of this review examines the specific design factors to

consider when creating a web-based tutorial.

2.2 E-learning Continuing Professional Development CPD is the means by which professionals develop and maintain the level of competence

necessary to provide high quality services to clients, employers and other stakeholders

(Chartered Accountants Ireland 2011). Meegan (2009) provides detailed analysis of the

definition of the professions, and the importance of their maintaining professional

competence by continuously engaging in professional development by means of

completing both structured and unstructured CPD.

To facilitate professionals engaging in CPD, CPD courses on relevant topics are

generally run by professional bodies and third party providers. However engaging in

CPD and completing CPD requirements is self-directed in that professionals ‘have the

primary responsibility for planning, carrying out and evaluating their own learning

  17

experiences’ (Merriam and Caffarella 1991 p.41). Whilst structured CPD was

traditionally based in classroom settings, modern technology has resulted in CPD

materials now being available in a multitude of formats (Little 2009), and many training

providers are now offering an e-learning alternative to complete structured CPD

(Chartered Accountants Ireland 2011; CPDWise.com 2011; Irish Tax Institute 2011).

Web-based professional development provides opportunities for traditional professional

development that would otherwise be prevented by geographical and professional

isolation, time, and financial resources (Putt, Henderson and Patching 1996 as cited by

Yang and Liu 2004, p.734; Sutton et al 2005).

The Effectiveness of E-Learning for CPD

A number of case studies examining the provision of CPD through e-learning in the

professions have shown e-learning to be an effective means for professionals to

complete their CPD requirements. Gill’s (2007) study, involving health professionals

partaking in an e-learning CPD module, concluded that participants found this approach

to CPD beneficial. Participants also showed improvements in all categories studied

during the module. Furthermore, Wall and Amhed’s (2007) study proposed a

framework for the creation of a blended learning programme for construction

professionals, and their findings determined that it is possible to create an effective

programme by integrating a number of information communication technologies (ICT).

Donavant (2009) determined that the learning success of police officers that completed

professional development courses online reported the same level of learning success as

did those who partook in traditional instruction.

In addition to learning achievement, it can be argued that the success of e-learning for

CPD can also be attributed to the many benefits that e-learning offers. Whilst

admittedly the majority of participants in Donavant’s (2009) study claimed to prefer

traditional instruction as opposed to e-learning, they did advocate the ‘general

convenience’ of e-learning. Scheduling flexibility, accessibility from remote locations

and the opportunity for the learner to work at his or her own pace, were the most

positive aspects of learning online. Similarly in a study of e-learning carried out with

health professionals, Sutton et al. (2005) observed that e-learning can make CPD more

accessible in that it can negate geographical and also budgetary concerns.

  18

These attributes echo some of the benefits proposed by number e-learning researchers.

(Frederickson, Reed and Clifford as cited by McGregor and Turner 2009 p.156; Twigg

1999 as cited by McGregor and Turner 2009, p.156; Rosenberg 2006; Bouhnik and

Marcus 2006 as cited by Liaw 2008, p.864; Capper 2001 as cited by Liaw 2008, p.864).

It can be argued that attributes such as anytime, anyplace and cost effectiveness are

especially relevant to current professionals with time consuming work commitments

and an economy that is struggling. Many providers, such as Chartered Accountants

Ireland have introduced online CPD because of these attributes (Meegan 2009).

2.3 Synchronous e-Learning – Web Conferencing Synchronous communication tools are used in same time/different place situations

when participants are located in (at least two) different places, and communicate

via computers using chat rooms or desktop video and Web conferences in real time

(Kosaris 2010, p. 894).

The provision of e-learning CPD has progressed over the past two years with a number

of professional bodies in Ireland beginning to offer their members synchronous CPD e-

learning solutions, in addition to asynchronous e-learning options, which could be

accessed at any time but did not allow for participant interaction (Chartered

Accountants Ireland 2011; Irish Tax Institute 2011). The Irish Tax Institute now offers

attendees the option of participating in a live online broadcast of a classroom event

(using web conferencing software) during which participants can submit questions live

to the course presenter (Ibid.)

The Learning Opportunities Offered by Web-Conferencing

There has recently been an international move towards the exploration and utilisation of

synchronous online learning tools and technologies in universities and educational

facilities (Falloon 2011, p.187). This is with a view to increase and enhance student

engagement, participation and interaction, and to combat feelings of isolation that may

beset students studying at a distance (Ibid.). The use of synchronous tools is a relatively

recent development in the field of e-learning. Its increasing popularity over the past few

years can be attributed to technological advancements that have lowered the cost of

personal computers and necessary software, and which have enabled a quicker and more

geographically widespread broadband network (Dammers 2009 as cited by Falloon

  19

2011; Falloon 2011; Pratt 2008; Yang and Liu 2007). For many institutions

synchronous online learning is now a viable and cost-effective alternative to face-to-

face tutorials, which can accommodate students who are geographically dispersed.

It is evident in the literature that synchronous e-learning has some advantages over

asynchronous e-learning. Hrastinski (2008) claimed that the anytime, anywhere features

of asynchronous e-learning accounted for their initial dominance of e-learning

environments. However there are a number of areas, identified by researchers and

summarised by Yang and Liu (2007), in which asynchronous learning environments

limit the learning process for students. Three of the issues identified included:

1. ‘No human teacher expression and explanation’

2. ‘No synchronisation and match between course materials and their

explanations’

3. ‘Lack of contextual understanding, just-in-time feedback and interactions’

(Yang and Liu 2007, p.172)

There is evidence in the literature to suggest that synchronous web conferencing can

address these issues. Current audio-visual web conferencing features allow the student

to see and hear the instructor’s ‘expression and explanation’. Students do not miss out

on visual cues and gestures and as course materials can be shared as a presentation is

given. There is ‘synchronicity’ between the course work displayed by the application-

sharing feature and the instructor’s explanation. Web conferencing supports live two-

way communication and encourages live participation and interaction with both the

teacher and fellow students. Both teachers and students can benefit from just-in-time

feedback and communication (Falloon 2011; Carbonaro et al 2008; Schullo et al 2007;

Pan and Sullivan 2005). Audio and chat area tools can be used to prompt the teacher or

presenter to clarify their statements (Carbonaro et al 2008), while live communication

also gives the teacher the opportunity to monitor student’s progress and can assist in

formative feedback (Coffey 2009; Schullo et al 2007).

Synchronous web conferencing software includes a range of interactive and multimedia

features; audio, video, application sharing, whiteboard, polling, voting, emoticons, chat,

Q&A and applause that enable presenters and participants to communicate and express

  20

themselves. Thatcher (2006, p.1085) defined ‘rich communication media’ to ‘have the

ability to clarify ambiguity, provide feedback and allow for multiple cues and language

variety’. Given this definition, it could be argued that synchronous learning tools such

as web conferencing, which incorporates a variety of communicative and interactive

features, can provide a richer communication environment for students.

The literature supports the assertion that learning opportunities can be enhanced through

the communicative, interactive and collaborative attributes of web conferencing. Taking

from Vygotsky’s (1962) socio-cultural constructivist theory of learning, Chen, Chen

and Tsai (2009 p.1156) stated that ‘dialogic interactions between students and tutors are

crucial for supporting negotiation of meaning that leads to knowledge construction.’

According to McBrien, Jones and Cheng (2009 p.30 as cited by Falloon 2011), as

synchronous communication supports two-way communication it can increase dialogue

more than a system that only supports one-way communication. Pratt (2008, p.1477)

suggests that web conferencing gives students the opportunity to develop their practice

through structured discussions with one another, reflection, and ‘situated learning’

within a ‘community of practice’. He goes on to claim that when given the opportunity

to interact and reflect students can ‘bring a range of contextual experiences to bear’

(Pratt 2008, p.1479).

Collins (1996 as cited by Falloon 2011) also espoused the use of synchronous

communication by claiming that student contribution can be enhanced by synchronous

systems. It may seem to be at odds with the importance of audiovisual synchronous

tools, but Falloon’s (2011) study also suggests that the anonymous nature of

synchronous chat facilities can encourage contributions from some who may not feel

comfortable contributing in a face-to-face environment. Thatcher (2006, p.1086)

concurs, and states that ‘increased anonymity in the online environment allows for more

equal participation’ as communication is not influenced by ‘non-task-related cues’.

2.4 The Importance of Learner Training and Support As I will outline in this section, the literature suggests that in some cases learners’

inexperience and lack of technical knowledge can hinder their attempts to fully

participate in e-learning courses and can negatively effect their learning experience.

  21

Tyler-Smith (2006) identified five multi-dimensional learning tasks that first time e-

learners must complete when engaging in e-learning, one of which is to be able to

negotiate the technology being used. Early ventures into computer conferencing by the

UK Open University, reported that technical problems logging in to CoSy hampered

early implementations (Mason 2000, p.65). Similarly, Docherty and Sandu (2006)

reported that professionals working in primary care cited technical problems and

inadequate support to be one of the main inhibitors of their online learning experience.

Hayashi et al (2004 as cited by Pillay, Irving and Tones 2007) pointed out that negative

online ‘learning experiences or unmet expectations may discourage future online

learning’.

Pillay, Irving and Tones 2007 found that learner’s technical skills can be overlooked

when introducing them to an e-learning environment. However, a study conducted by

Docherty and Sandu (2006), supports the view that online learners often require training

in the online learning environment. Their study found that being unfamiliar with, and

unable to operate the e-learning technologies being used, can result in the learner

feeling isolated and dissatisfied with their learning experience. It is important to

consider the students as individuals, with different levels of experience and

expectations; some may need more training and support than others (Ibid). Monoi et al

(2005 as cited by Pillay, Irving and Tones 2007, p.233) gives further support for

providing training for online learners. He stated that online skills training might

improve learners’ computer self-efficacy by building learner confidence and giving

them the skills necessary to negotiate online learning environments (Ibid).

2.5 Scaffolding Recent years have seen the introduction of scaffolding processes and tools into e-

learning environments to provide learners with ‘support, guidance, and assistance’ in

order to help them complete tasks independently and improve their abilities (Tsai 2011,

p.147). As will become apparent, the notion of the scaffolding metaphor has broadened

considerably since Wood, Bruner and Ross first introduced it in 1976 (Puntambaker and

Hubshcer 2005; Sherin 2004; Stone 1998a; Stone 1998b). In this section I will outline

the evolution of the scaffolding metaphor from its origins to its current representations

and application in e-learning and blended learning environments.

  22

The Origins of the Notion of Scaffolding

Wood, Bruner and Ross coined the term ‘scaffolding’ in their 1976 paper The role of

tutoring in problem solving (1976). They (1976, p.90) defined scaffolding as assistance

provided by an adult or expert ‘that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry

out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts’. ‘The adult

controls elements of the task that are beyond the child’s capabilities so that the child can

concentrate on those that are within their range of competence’ (Ibid.). There is the

assumption that after completing the task the child genuinely understands the task and

what was learned (Stone 1998a, p.345). Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) suggested that

scaffolding was based on two theoretical models, namely the theory of the task and the

theory of the tutee and outlined six functions of the scaffolding process:

1. Recruitment – garner the child’s interest.

2. Reduction in the degrees of freedom – simplify the task.

3. Direction maintenance – motivate the child.

4. Marking critical features – marking the relevant features of the task.

5. Frustration control.

6. Demonstration.

Although not explicitly linked in their original work, Wood, Bruner and Ross were

inarguably influenced by Vygotsky’s work on the Zone of Proximal Development

(ZPD) (Stone 1998a). Vygotsky (1978) determined that a child has two developmental

levels, the zone of actual development and the zone of proximal development. He

(1978, p.86) defined the zone of proximal development to be ‘the distance between the

actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level

of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance

or in collaboration with more capable peers’. Bruner (1985, p.25) later explicated the

link between scaffolding and the ZPD. He stated that the tutor scaffolds learning in the

ZPD ‘to make it possible for the child in Vygotsky’s word to internalise external

knowledge and convert it into a tool for conscious control’ (Ibid.).

Early studies on scaffolding centred on one-on-one tutorials and mother and child

interactions (Sherin, Reiser and Edelson 2004, p.87). However the scaffolding metaphor

was soon extended to student teacher relations (Crazden 1979 as cited by Pol, Volman

and Beishuizen 2010, p.271; Stone 1998a, p.345) and classroom environments

  23

(Palinscar and Brown, 1984 as cited by Stone 1998, p.348). As the scaffolding

metaphor broadened, concerns were raised as to whether it still remained true to its

original inception as key scaffolding characteristics were missing from its application

(Stone 1998a; Stone 1998b). Stone (1998a) proposed an enriched scaffolding metaphor,

scaffolding as a process, which emphasises the joint tutor and student participation that

is evident in the ideas of Vygotsky (1978) and Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976).

Strengthening the definition of the scaffolding metaphor Pol, Volman and Beishuizen

(2010, p.274-275) discerned three key characteristics of scaffolding:

1. Contingency – Support must be tailored to suit the student and adapted as

the student progresses

2. Fading – support is gradually withdrawn as the student becomes more

competent

3. Transfer of responsibility – as support fades responsibility moves from the

instructor to the student

The Evolution of the Scaffolding Notion

The advent of technology enhanced learning environments has resulted in the increased

production and implementation of software scaffolds and a further broadening of the

notion of scaffolding (Sharma and Hannafin 2007; Puntambekar and Hübscher 2005;

Pea 2004). However, there remain opposing views as to whether or not software

applications, environments, learning artefacts and similar online resources can be

defined as scaffolds as they do not always exhibit the key characteristics of scaffolding

(Pol, Volman and Beishuizen 2010, p.274-275; Pea 2004). Puntambekar and Hübscher

(2005, p.7) provided a useful table illustrating the evolution of the notion of scaffolding,

which I have replicated below.

  24

Feature of Scaffolding Original Notion of Scaffolding Evolved (current) Notion of

Scaffolding

Shared understanding Adult or expert establishes

shared understanding of

common goal and provides

motivation

Authentic task often embedded

in the environment provides

shared understanding

Scaffolder • Single, more

knowledgeable person

provides support to

complete the task

• Multimodal assistance

provided by a single

individual

• Assistance is provided;

tools and resources

• Distributed expertise –

Support is not necessarily

provided by more

knowledgeable person, but

by peers as well

Ongoing diagnosis and

calibrated support

• Dynamic scaffolding based

on an ongoing assessment

of the learner (individual)

• Adaptive scaffolding –

Support is calibrated and

sensitive to the changing

needs of the learner

• Passive support – Ongoing

diagnosis by peers and or

software is not necessarily

undertaken

• Blanket ‘scaffolding’ –

Support (especially in

tools) is the same for all

students

Fading Eventual fading of scaffolding

as students become more

capable of independent activity

In most cases, support is

permanent and unchanging

Table 2.1: Evolution of the Notion of Scaffolding

As you will see from the table above, both a lack of fading and on-going diagnosis are

apparent when you compare the original notion of scaffolding to that which is being

applied to blended learning environments. Puntambekar and Hübscher (2005) view

fading as a critical theoretical feature of scaffolding that is not being taken into account

when applying the scaffolding notion to software tools. They argue that the scaffolding

construct is ‘increasingly being used synonymously with support (Puntanbekar and

Hübscher 2005, p.1). Sharma and Hannafin (2007, p.29) identify fading as the key

difference between scaffolding and other forms of support and suggest that

technological environments do not allow for dynamic scaffolding. Despite this, a

number of studies have attempted to introduce fading into technological environments.

  25

Puntambekar and Hübscher (2005) carried out one such study. They proposed, that

fading could be introduced in a multi-scaffolded environment designed to take account

of multiple ZPDs found in a classroom, from which tools are withdrawn to introduce

fading.

Other researchers do not strictly adhere to the fading characteristic. Doering and

Veletsianos (2007) created a multi-scaffolded environment in which the scaffolds did

not fade. They argued that the choice as to whether or not to fade was up to the learner

(Ibid.). Sherin, Reiser and Edelson (2004, p.31) suggested that having to adhere to a

strict set of functions may be limiting given the now broad application of scaffolding

and did not take fading into account when developing their scaffolding analysis. Saye

and Brush’s (2002, p.81) study incorporated hard scaffolds, which they defined as

‘static supports that can be anticipated and planned in advance, based on typical student

difficulties with a task’ as opposed to soft scaffolds which are dynamic and situational.

Puntambekar and Hübscher (2005, p.8) discuss a similar type of scaffold, a ‘passive

scaffold’. Passive scaffolds lack ongoing diagnosis, adaptation and fading. Passive or

hard scaffolds are based primarily on the theory of the task, as the characteristics of the

individual tutee are not considered (Ibid.).

Despite the contention as to what is true scaffolding, both dynamic and static

scaffolding support tools continue to be used in e-learning and blended learning

environments. Dynamic tools have been introduced to encourage self-regulated student

learning (Shih et al 2010) and to motivate procrastinators (Tuckman 2007). Static

supports are often seen as a tool to reduce cognitive load and to ensure that learners and

teachers can concentrate on relevant tasks (Doering and Veletsianos 2007). Saye and

Brush (2002) admit however, that students may fail to use hard supports and argue for a

mix of both static and dynamic supports to be used in blended learning environments to

cater for varied needs.

Designing a Software Scaffold

With regard to the design of a software scaffold, Lumpe and Butler (2002 as cited by

Sharma and Hannafin 2007, p.33) advocated a learner-centred design process that

considers design and use throughout, involving the users from an early stage. This way

the risk of unintended interpretations of a scaffolds’ intent is reduced (Ibid.). Sharma

  26

and Hanafin (2007, p.33) outlined two major design components of scaffolding

software: making cognitive components explicit and using appropriate representations.

To achieve these broad goals they introduced nine key design considerations:

1. Explicate process using procedural scaffolds.

2. Make understanding visible by using metacognitive scaffolds.

3. Balance metacognitive and procedural scaffolds.

4. Account for user characteristics.

5. Account for user expectations of task.

6. Integrate contextually appropriate scaffolds.

7. Use scaffolds sensitive to learner assumptions, needs and differences.

8. Ensure scaffold visibility and utilisation.

9. Ensure proper modelling.

(Sharma and Hannafin 2007, p.35-37).

When designing scaffolding in hypermedia environments Shapiro (2007, p.34) advises

that you consider the needs of both high prior knowledge and low prior knowledge

learners. High prior knowledge learners benefit from having more control over their

learning environment whereas low prior knowledge users benefit more when given less

control and prescribed pathways (Ibid.).

Scaffolding can be used to describe a multitude of supports. Screen-capture videos and

software coaching tools have been introduced as scaffolds in some studies. Doering and

Veletsianos (2007) used a screen-capture video tutorial as a procedural scaffold in a

learner controlled multi-scaffolding environment. Kim and Hannafin (2011, p.408)

explain that a procedural scaffold can be used to guide a student in addressing

operational aspects of a learning environment. In their study, quantitative data showed

that time spent on the screen-capture video tutorial was ‘positively and significantly

related to problem solving ability’ (Doering and Veletsianos 2007, p124).

2.6 Designing a Web-based Tutorial In this section I will discuss the design issues that need to be considered when creating a

web-based tutorial. These will be discussed under the following headings:

1. Initial data analysis.

  27

2. Teaching strategy.

3. E-Authoring software.

4. Outlining objectives.

5. Timing and structure.

6. Multimedia.

7. Usability.

8. Evaluation.

Huang (2005) advocated a learner-centered approach when designing web-based

tutorials. This general theme becomes apparent under each of the headings below.

Initial Data Analysis

When referring to designing web-based multimedia tutorials, Huang (2005, p.223)

recommended that you first ‘understand the learning problem and the user’s needs.’

This is very similar to the theoretical frameworks of scaffolding – the theory of the task

and the theory of the tutee (Wood, Bruner and Ross 1976). To determine the learning

problem and the user’s needs, it will first be necessary to gather data from both learners

and instructors (Yelinek et al 2008). If possible it may be beneficial to survey the

learners, to ascertain their experience, computer skills and if possible, their learning

style (Ibid.). This will help determine to what prerequisite skills can be assumed, and

what content and skills need to be covered in the tutorial (Ibid.). Discussions with

instructors can also help to inform the content and design. For example in a study

undertaken by Yelinek et al (2008 p.102), initial data gathering from teachers,

established that to suit the audience the online tutorials should be ‘short with few

written points’.

Teaching Strategy

Establishing the learning problem can help to determine the most appropriate teaching

strategy to follow. Su and Kuo (2010, p.323) define three teaching strategies in their

study on library information literacy web-based tutorials:

1. Active learning: ‘An active learning strategy typically incorporates online

exercises or quizzes to encourage interactions between the user and the tutorial.’

2. Situation simulation: ‘Situation simulation strategy typically aims at

demonstrating how to proceed step-by-step along certain operations, such as

searching a database.’

  28

3. Solving an actual problem: ‘Question-oriented strategy guides students to

develop … skills through solving an actual problem.’

(Ibid.)

It could be argued that situation simulation is the most appropriate strategy to

implement when teaching adult learners how to navigate an application. Yelinek et al

(2008, p.101) compare teaching an application to teaching a procedure by stating that

learners ‘must first learn the vocabulary involved…be shown the steps in the procedure

and guided through practice before attempting the procedure on their own.’ Situation

simulation through screen recording allows the instructor to demonstrate navigation and

operation of an application step by step, while also recording simultaneous narrative to

explain their actions. Including active learning elements, encourages the learner to

interact with the tutorial. Zhang et al (2006) claims that the constructivist theory

underpins learning in situations where there is learner-content interaction. The

constructivist theory of learning holds that learners actively construct their own

meaning and knowledge from their experiences (Kolb 1984).

eAuthoring Software

Adobe Captivate 5.5 is an eAuthoring software that can be used to design and create

multi-media web-based tutorials and other e-learning content (Captivate - Adobe 2011).

Captivate can create both active learning and situation simulation e-learning tutorials.

Captivate allows you to create screen-capture recordings to demonstrate software, add

voice-overs and import PowerPoint presentations. It then arranges your content in

slides, which can be individually edited. Multimedia such as images, movies, captions,

sound effects, and a range of interactive features such as textboxes, click-boxes, and

quizzes can be added to your content. Captivate’s table of contents and aggregator tools

allow you to arrange and group your slides into the sequence you choose and when

published, individual self-contained sections can be randomly accessed using the table

of contents and flash player controls. If you are planning to add your e-learning content

onto a website, Captivate publishes to small web format (SWF) so that the end product

can be easily placed on a webpage and quickly downloaded by viewers (Ibid.).

Timing and Structure

As learners can have a range of levels of experience and skills, it is not always possible

  29

to suit everyone. However, if a tutorial is designed to contain a number of self-

contained sections that can be easily accessed by the learners through a table of

contents, without having to sit through the entire tutorial, it may be possible to include

basic and more advanced skills in one tutorial. Yelinek et al (2008) points out that

usually learners will not need to learn everything about the software. Having the control

to choose which self-contained sections to access is again beneficial in this case.

Another benefit of short self-contained segments is that they can easily keep the

attention of learners (Su and Kuo 2010).

Outlining Objectives

Best practice specifies that the objectives of a training course should be outlined at the

very beginning (Yelinek et al 2008). This way, learners know what to expect. In the

case of a web-based tutorial, objectives can be listed at the beginning of the tutorial as

an index or table of contents hyperlinked so that learners can directly access a section of

interest (Ibid.).

Multimedia

The use of multimedia and animation can enhance the effectiveness of a web-based

tutorial and ‘provides realistic learning arenas’ (Su and Kuo 2010, p.326). Vaughan

(2008, p.1) defines multimedia to be ‘a combination of text, graphic art, sound,

animation and video, delivered by computer or other electronic means’. He advocates

its use as an educational tool and claims that the use of multimedia improves

information retention (Ibid.). Similarly, Brandt (1997 as cited by Liaw 2008, p.869)

stated that graphics, video and other media can help to engage learners and keep their

interest. When designing a web-based multimedia tutorial Huang (2005, p.223)

recommends that you ‘design the content to harness the enabling technologies and build

multimedia materials with web style standards and human factors principles’.

Usability

Usability is paramount when designing web-based multimedia tutorials or any web-

based multimedia artefact (Vaughan 2008; Huang 2005; Nielsen 2005). In general

terms, when considering usability Nielsen’s ten heuristic guidelines should be followed

when designing any type of software interface (Nielsen 1993). Mackey and Ho’s (2005,

p388) study determined that the usability of short web-based tutorials was directly

  30

linked to students’ perceived learning (Ibid). Drawing from the work of Nielsen and

others, they identified usability factors that are of particular relevance when designing

tutorials that are being placed on the Internet (see Table 2.2 below) (Mackey & Ho

2008, p394). One usability factor missing from the table below is consistency, one of

Nielsen’s heuristic guidelines. Text, colours, structure and layout ,where possible,

should remain consistent from screen to screen (Nielsen 1993). Nielsen (1993) also

recommends that you use the user’s own language to make the content easy to

understand.

Mackey & Ho (2008) do however take into account technological issues to consider

when creating a web-based tutorial.

Content File Size and response

time

Screen size User Control

• Quality content

• Ease of access

• Useful information

• Audience

considerations

• Combine audio and

video to deliver

content

• Small file size and

duration

• Keep duration brief

• Quick response time

• Speed of access

• Good video and

sound quality

• Streaming media

format

• Provide warnings

about download time

• Design for accessible

display in most

browsers

• Standard menu

control

• Accessible navigation

for play, pause, stop,

rewind, and fast-

forward

• Status bar for loading

and total file size

Table 2.2: Usability factors for web-based tutorials

 

Evaluation

Huang (2005, p.223) suggests that after creating a web-based tutorial the next actions to

take are ‘user testing, and evaluate and improve design’. Nielsen (1993) outlined a

number of methods by which usability can be tested both by experts and real users,

including questionnaires and video recording. He recommends that, where possible,

tests should be carried out by real users (Ibid.). Nielsen (1993, p.177) also advises that

‘almost all user interfaces need to be tested by novice users, and many systems should

also be tested with expert users’. Mackey and Ho (2008) distributed a questionnaire to

evaluate the usability of their web-based multimedia tutorials and student’s perceived

  31

learning. When evaluating a web-based tutorial, direct feedback can be initially

obtained from tests carried out before the tutorial is placed on a website. Suggested

changes and improvements can then be made. Once the web-based tutorial is live, one

option is to include a form on the website where learners can leave feedback after

completing the tutorial (Su and Kuo 2010, p.327). Su and Kuo (2010, p.327) explain

how site statistics can provide indirect feedback. For instance, if a tutorial segment is

repeatedly viewed, it may mean that the segment cannot be easily comprehended.

Learning effectiveness of web-based tutorials

Web-based tutorials have some advantages when compared to face-to-face teaching.

Learning can be self-directed and learners have the opportunity to learn at their own

pace (Su and Kuo 2010; Zhang 2005). In a classroom environment, a learner may feel

uncomfortable asking a lecturer/teacher to repeat him or herself (Ibid.). However, when

accessing a web-based tutorial, sections can be repeated as many times as the learner

needs if they did not catch the meaning the first time (Ibid.). In addition, if a web-based

tutorial is made up of self-contained sections on different topics that can be randomly

accessed, a learner can navigate to a section of interest to them without sitting through

the entire tutorial (Yelinek et al 2008; Zhang 2005). This allows for learner content

interaction.

Studies have shown that students who completed tutorials that allow for random access,

and include multimedia elements, achieved better results and reported greater levels of

satisfaction than those who completed linear video courses (Zhang et al 2006; Zhang

2005). Zhang et al (2006) claims constructivist theory underpins learning in situations

where there is learner-content interaction. Zhang et al (2006) applies this theory to

random access online multimedia tutorials as learners actively engage with the content,

control the pace of their learning, and can discover things for themselves.

2.7 Conclusion Professional bodies are now offering both asynchronous and synchronous e-learning

CPD solutions for professionals. The availability and uptake of synchronous e-learning

continues to grow and its benefits are apparent from the literature. However, the

literature shows that the factors influencing the increased availability and uptake of

  32

online professional are convenience, cost, time and travel and many learners may be

inexperienced and lacking in technical skills. This is a concern, as in some cases a

learner’s lack of technical knowledge and ability can negatively affect their learning

experiences when participating in online professional development courses and the

literature supports the need for training and support to be provided.

The notion of scaffolding is now being applied to blended learning environments to

support e-learners. However, the notion has broadened considerably since it was first

introduced by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976). There is concern and contention that

software scaffolds do not contain the key identifying characteristics of the scaffolding

metaphor. While some researchers have attempted to instill software scaffolds with the

key characteristics of contingency, fading and transfer of responsibility, others have

continued to develop static procedural scaffolds. Some argue that the broadened notion

of scaffolding will be needlessly limited by the enforcement of stringent conditions. The

literature recommend a number of design factors to be considered when creating

software scaffolds. Some of the factors identified, overlap with the design and usability

considerations that the literature suggests should be followed, when creating a web-

based tutorial.

  33

3 Chapter 3 - Methodology

3.1 Introduction In this chapter I introduce the philosophical concepts of ontology and epistemology and

explain how they provide the foundations on which research is built. I outline the

characteristics of the primary research paradigms, positivism and interpretivism, and the

emergence of the transformative paradigms, from which action research originated. I

then provide a brief overview of action research and explain my reasons for choosing to

adopt a practitioner-based action research methodological approach (as proposed by

Whitehead (1989)) in carrying out my research. I present the research methods I

employed in implementing my research question ‘How am I learning to scaffold a

synchronous online professional development course?’. I explain how I will establish

rigour in my study and validate my claims to knowledge. Finally I detail the ethical

considerations in my study and acknowledge its limitations.

3.2 Evolution of Research The purpose of research is generally understood as gathering data and testing it in

order to generate new knowledge which can produce new theories of how reality works

(McNiff and Whitehead 2002, p.19).

According to Morrison (2007) there are two key questions for researchers: What is the

relation between what we see and understand [our claims to ‘know and our theories of

knowledge or epistemology] and that, which is reality [our sense of being or ontology].

In other words how do we go about creating knowledge about the world in which we

live? (McKenzie 1997 as cited by Morrison 2007, p.18).

In research there are two opposing ontological foundations, the first being the

assumption that there is a reality that can be viewed objectively and the second contends

that all realities are constructed by the perceiver (Grogan and Simmons 2007, p.38).

Whitehead and McNiff (2006, p.258) expand on this by defining ontology as ‘a theory

of being, which influences how people perceive themselves and the rest of their

environment’. They define epistemology, as what is known, how we understand

  34

knowledge. and how this knowledge is acquired (Whitehead and McNiff 2006, p.26). A

researcher’s ontological perspective in turn affects their epistemological stance and their

chosen methodology when carrying out research. A researcher’s social reality and what

he/she thinks there is to be researched (ontology) will affect what can be known to them

(epistemology), and how they go about knowing it (methodology) (Whitehead and

McNiff 2006; Grix 2004). Below I have adapted a diagram from Grix (2004, p.66),

which illustrates the affect ontology and epistemology have on research.

Figure 3.1 - The effect of ontology and epistemology on research

Research Paradigms

To paraphrase Morrison (2007, p.19), a research paradigm is a set of ‘beliefs or

epistemological assumptions’, which are drawn upon by researchers to make sense of

research information and transform it into data. The evolution of research can be traced

alongside the major paradigm shifts. A paradigm shift occurs when paradigms are

‘overtaken, replaced or placed alongside other paradigms’ (Grix 2004, p.25). By

detailing the positivist and interpretivist paradigms, I will examine the shift in ideas and

concepts in research. I will then introduce the emergence of the transformative

approaches from which action research originated.

  35

Positivist

Grix (2004, p.80) presents positivism as one of the main research paradigms. As I

explained above, research paradigms are directly influenced by ontology and

epistemology. Positivism is based on a foundationalist ontology, which views the world

as existing independently of our knowledge of it (Ibid.). This view is echoed by

Coghlan and Brannick (2006 p.6), who state that positivism has an objectivist view of

both ontology and epistemology. They explain that the objectivist view of ontology

holds that social and natural reality has an independent existence prior to human

cognition while the objectivist view of epistemology assumes that it is possible to

access the external world objectively (Ibid.).

Positivism looks to use scientific methods to analyse the social world (Grix 2004, p.81)

and maintains the study of natural science as a model for the study of human science

using quantitative data and methods. It is concerned with seeking precise objective

findings and seeks to establish cause and effect relationships (Ibid.). Findings are

validated when they can be replicated and generalised (McNiff and Whitehead 2002,

p.31). Positivist findings provide an explanation rather than an understanding of the

topic under study. These explanations are then often used as a predictive tool, as

according to Rubinstein (1981 as cited by Grix 2004) many believe the ‘real purpose of

explanation is prediction’.

Within the positivist approach people are objects of the research. Their individuality and

uniqueness are not considered (Morrison 2007) and their personal involvement can be

seen as a contamination of the research findings (McNiff 1988, p.15).

Interpretivist

In the 1880s, concerns from the social sciences that the positivist approach failed to

explain certain phenomena prompted researchers to begin to use qualitative research

methods (Hennessy 2007, p.23). The aim was to generate new theory to explain how

and why people act as they do, and to understand rather than measure anonymous

research subjects (McNiff 2010, p.54). The interpretivist paradigm developed from this

shift to qualitative study and in many respects it is seen as the opposite to positivism

(Grix 2004, p.82).

  36

Contrary to positivist approaches, interpretivism has an anti-foundationalist view of

ontology in that it ‘subscribes to the view that the world does not exist independently of

our knowledge to it’ (Grix 2004, p.80). Its epistemological stance is subjective;

meaning that it holds that it ‘is not possible to access the world objectively’ (Coghlan

and Brannick 2005, p.6). Interpretivism is not value-free. According to interpretivists

such as Grix (2004) ‘social phenomena do not exist independently of our interpretation

of them’ (p.82). Researchers are not detached from the subject they are studying (Ibid.).

The researcher’s values, opinions and beliefs are taken into account.

The Emergence of Transformative Approaches

The emergence of critical theory began in the 1930s, most prominently from the

Frankfurt School, out of concerns that the traditional research paradigms failed to

recognise the ‘historical, cultural and social situatedness of learners’ (McNiff and

Whitehead 2002, p.33). According to Grogan and Simmons, (2008, p.38) critical theory

is also termed as a transformative theory as the purpose of the research conducted is not

just to explain or understand what is being studied but also to change it.

3.3 Action Research Lewin (1946 as cited my McNiff 1988, p.22) described action research as a spiral of

steps and each step had four stages; planning, acting, observing and reflecting. These

stages were refined and expanded by Carr and Kemmis (1986 as cited by McNiff 1988,

p.26) and their action research model is still one of the most widely used today. While

admitting that Kemmis has provided invaluable texts on educational action research,

McNiff and Whitehead (2002, p.51) believe the failings of Carr and Kemmis’ model

(and other earlier models) lie in their prescriptiveness, disregard for the values base of

practice and sociological rather than educational perspective. McNiff (2010) points out

that in research, things do not often work out in a linear manner so you should allow for

the possibility of a shift in the focus of enquiry. I am particularly drawn to McNiff’s

(2010) action plan, (Figure 3.2), and was developed from Whitehead and McNiff’s

(2006) action plan. The researcher should not to be too surprised if things do not turn

out as expected and should regard the action plan as a set of prompts rather than rigid

prescriptive steps (ibid). While I structured the cycles in my implementation chapter

under the generic action research headings of plan, act, observe and reflect I found this

  37

action plan to be of considerable assistance in guiding me in my initial choice of

research topic

(Appendix I), and through my implementation.

Figure 3.2: Action Plan

Whitehead and McNiff (2006, p.38) hold that the purpose of action research should not

just be about problem solving, but about learning and creating knowledge. In the living

education theory approach to action research as advocated by Whitehead (1989), the

‘living I’ is placed at the centre of the research. That is, the researcher herself is central

to the research (Whitehead and McNiff 2006, p.38), and researchers engage with the

question ‘how do I improve what I am doing?’ (Whitehead 1989). The practitioner-

researcher generates her own educational theories through descriptions and explanations

of her practice – what she is doing and how she is doing it.

An essential element is reflection. Reflective practice as taken from the work of Schon

(1983), is the way in which individuals critically reflect on their action and develop

actionable knowledge (Coghlan and Brannick 2005). Farren and Ryan (2004, p.14)

assert that action research is a cyclical process in which ‘practitioners reflect

systematically on their practice, implementing informed action with the aim of bringing

about improvement in practice.’

• What is my concern? • Why am I concerned? • How do I show the situation as it is and as it develops as I take action? • What can I do? What will I do? • How do I generate evidence from the data? • How do I check that any conclusions I come to are reasonably fair and

accurate? • How do I explain the significance of my research? • How do I modify my ideas and practices in light of my evaluation?

  38

Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological Assumptions

Education is a value-laden activity and in many cases we realise that as practitioners, we

are not living according to our values and are in fact ‘living contradictions’ (Whitehead

1989). Through an open-ended spiral of active and reflective cycles, the researcher’s

values become living standards by which their actions and practice are measured

(Whitehead and McNiff 2006, p.23). The researcher constructs their own knowledge

during the process, by critically engaging with her own opinions and assumptions in

collaboration with the participants in the study.

I believe that it offers hope that by living my educational values I can generate positive

change both in myself as a practitioner, and effect positive change in my workplace.

The possibility to improve and transform from within my own context is very

empowering and liberating. I believe that by following this approach I have been given

the opportunity to grow and learn as a practitioner.

3.4 Data Collection and Data Analysis Bell (2005, p.115) states that the methods chosen by a researcher to collect data should

be first determined by the questions ‘What do I need to know?’ and ‘Why do I need to

know it?’. This informs the researcher of the best method to collect data and what to do

with the data once collected. This is the policy I followed when deciding which would

be the most appropriate methods to use at each stage of the research process. In action

research, data collection can also be described as data generation when data is collected

through interventions engaging with colleagues (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010). Below I

give a brief overview of the methods I used to collect and generate data. I used both

qualitative and quantitative methods depending on which was most suitable at any given

stage. Analysis of the data occurred on an ongoing basis as it was collected using Miles

and Huberman (1984) tactics for generating meaning.

Documentation

According to Coghlan and Brannick (2005) an action research cycle begins with the

context and purpose of the research. I intend to partly convey the context and purpose of

my research concern through gathering and analysing existing relevant documentary

evidence from my organisation using survey findings and evaluation documents.

  39

Emails

I have used emails to convey evidence of relevant correspondence throughout the

research process. Emails will also help to show the situation as it stood prior to

beginning the action cycles.

Observation

As a practitioner researching in action, I am central to the research project and my own

observations and interventions will generate data throughout each stage of the process.

I also used a form of indirect observation, a usability screen recording software entitled

Silverback – guerrilla usability testing (http://silverbackapp.com/). Silverback (2011)

captures screen activity and highlights mouseclicks. It also records a video of the

tester’s face and their voice as they test software. I used Silverback (2011) with a pilot

group in cycle one of my implementation to help in the evaluation of the web-based

tutorial that I created. It was beneficial as it allowed me to indirectly observe the

participants and their interactions while they tested the web-based tutorial. Details and

difficulties that participants did not recall from the testing process or did not mention

when asked to recommend changes were also observed.

Questionnaire

In the second action cycle I used a questionnaire so that participants could evaluate the

usability of the updated web-based tutorial and their perceived learning, and leave any

suggestions for improvement or general comments (Appendix D). The questionnaire

consisted of 22 statements relating to usability and perceived learning to which

participants were asked to rate their agreement using a five point likert scale. Two open

qualitative questions were also included. The questionnaire was modelled on a survey

developed by Mackey and Ho (2008) designed to empirically measure the link between

the usability of web-based multi-media tutorials and student’s perceived learning. I

distributed the survey using online survey software - Surveygizmo

(http://www.surveygizmo.com/), which allows you to create and distribute a survey

online and automatically collects the responses.

  40

Reflective Journals

As the practitioner in action, my own learning and development is central to the action

research process. According to McNiff, Lomas and Whitehead (1996) one of the useful

functions of a learning journal is that it provides an account of the researcher’s

experiences, thoughts and feelings in an interpretative self-evaluating manner. My aim

is to record my reflection in action. As the action cycles progress I will record my

experiences, reflections and interpretations. The reflective journal will provide explicit

evidence of my own critical thinking as I question my own assumptions and hypotheses

throughout the research process.

3.5 Validity and Rigour I will test my claims to knowledge and establish validity by presenting my

implementation and findings to my validation group and by asking my critical friend

and to measure my findings against the four criteria adapted from Habermas’

framework of social validity by Farren (2006, p.102).

• Is the account of my learning comprehensible?

• Is there sufficient evidence to justify the claims being made?

• Are my educational values clearly revealed and justified?

• Is there evidence of my learning in the learning of others?

I will also meet with my colleagues to discuss the worth of my actions in an

organisational context.

To ensure rigour in my research I am using a variety of research methods

(triangulation). Triangulation allows the researcher to cross check findings with a view

to establishing the same conclusions through a variety of perspectives (Bell 2005,

p.116). The cyclical nature of action research and participative approach also helps in

establishing rigour.

3.6 Ethical Considerations McNiff (2010) maintains that one’s main ethical consideration should be to do no harm

whilst carrying out your research. My main ethical concern will be the protection of the

  41

participants and stakeholders involved in the study. To ensure that participants are fully

aware of what they are agreeing to, each will receive a plain language statement

detailing fully the purpose of the research and what participating in the research will

entail (Appendix E). They will also be asked to sign an informed consent form, which

will state that they have the option to withdraw from the research at any time (Appendix

F). Confidentiality is a major consideration and I plan to resolve the data aspect by

dealing with all data personally and keeping it in a secure location. The research

methods that I have outlined in the sections above may not allow for anonymity of

participants. However, all participants gave consent to be named in the study. I have

also been given permission by my Director to name my organisation in this study and to

utilise member needs analysis survey results and feedback from customers who have

previously accessed live online seminars.

Added considerations arise due to action research being the chosen methodology and so

possible and actual ethical questions must be posed around the action cycles (Walker

and Haslett 2002 as cited by Coghlan and Brannick 2005, p.78). This involves concerns

arising from ensuring confidentiality in a collaborative methodology and the

meaningfulness of informed consent if the final destination of the evolving cycles of

action research cannot be determined, issues which were raised by Williamson and

Prosser (2002 as cited by Coghlan and Brannick 2005, p.78). In the course of the

research I realised that my initial plain language statements and informed consent forms

were not suitable for the second cycle’s participants as they would not be interviewed or

recorded and would be required to complete a questionnaire. For these participants I

redrafted an applicable plain language statement and informed consent form.

3.7 Limitations of the Study This is a specific study relating to my work place and cannot be generalised. I believe

that the most significant limitation was that I was unable to access the broader

membership of the Institute to participate in the study. However, the participants

involved were invested colleagues, two of whom are also members of the Institute.

  42

3.8 Conclusion In the above chapter, I have introduced the philosophical concepts of ontology and

epistemology and established how ontological and epistemological assumptions have

informed the major research paradigms and their primary characteristics. I explained my

reasons for choosing to adopt a practitioner based action research methodological

approach. The triangulation of research methods and the action cycle process will aid in

establishing rigour in my study while a validation group, my critical friend and

colleagues will assist in validating my claims to knowledge and the worth of my

endeavours. I have identified the ethical considerations I must take account of in my

research and have set out the ways in which they will be dealt with in an action research

context. I have also acknowledged the limitations of my study, which includes my

inability to involve real users from the wider membership of the Institute.

In the next chapter I will present the Implementation of my study as I attempt to answer

my research question ‘How am I learning to scaffold a synchronous professional

development course’?

  43

4 Chapter 4 - Implementation

4.1 Introduction In this chapter I detail the implementation of my research question ‘How am I learning

to scaffold a synchronous online professional development course’. Through the

implementation of my research I hope to show the development of my educational

values, in particular how I am learning to scaffold learners by creating a web-based

tutorial designed to teach learners the procedural steps involved in accessing and

participating in a synchronous online professional development course.

I expand upon the background to my research, which was introduced in chapter one,

explaining how it is underpinned and guided by my values. I then detail two action

cycles, which were carried out in May and June 2011. The action cycles are structured

under the headings Plan, Act, Observe and Reflect as first proposed by Lewin (1946 as

cited my McNiff 1988, p.22). The first cycle deals with how I designed, created and

evaluated the web-based tutorial. The findings of the first cycle and my own reflections

feed into cycle two in which I attempt to improve, and then evaluate the web-based

tutorial.

I also discuss the validation and rigour of my study. Through my own reflections on the

research process and through the feedback and validation of participants, my critical

friend and validation group, I then establish whether my values are clearly conveyed in

the implementation of the research and whether my claim to knowledge are valid.

4.2 Background My study developed from a concern that there were barriers in place preventing a

section of learners from having effective learning experiences when attending online

professional development courses. I first acknowledged my concerns about this issue in

my reflective journal on 5 December 2010 when I began to consider the way in which

online seminars are managed in my organisation.

  44

Our e-learning online seminars have been in place for over a year now but I think

the system by which users access the online seminars and in particular how they

are instructed to access the online seminars isn't great...

Reflective Journal – 5 December 2010

I began refining my concerns, guided by McNiff’s (2010) action plan, as conveyed in

my reflective journal of 11 December 2010 (Appendix I). I chose to focus on

synchronous online professional development courses (termed live online seminars),

which were introduced by the Irish Tax Institute one year ago. As mentioned in Chapter

one, the Institute streams live online seminars from classroom events using WebEx web

conferencing software. Feedback received from online learners indicated that for some,

technical difficulties and lack of training meant that they could not access the live

online seminars or had problems navigating WebEx when they did get access. This

meant that they were not getting the most from their online learning experience.

Technical difficulties and inexperience were causing them to miss out on live online

seminar content thus inhibiting their learning and professional development. As studies

in the literature I reviewed have shown, inexperience and technical problems can cause

learners to feel frustrated and inadequate and one negative experience could stop them

from participating in future online courses (Hayashi et al 2004 as cited by Pillay, Irving

and Tones 2007).

My Values

As I had mentioned in Chapter one, my concerns and the focus of this research project

stemmed from my own educational values although they were not entirely clear to me at

the beginning of this process. I firmly believe that to educate and assist others, an

educator should place herself in the position of the learner to truly understand how best

to help them. By doing this, the educator is empathising with the learner. I can

understand and empathise with the frustrations and upset of online learners through my

own experiences as a student. There were many occasions when I did not understand

what was being covered in class and I felt at a complete loss. However, through the

assistance of lecturers and classmates I was able to progress in my studies and

overcome any stumbling blocks. Through reflection and discussing my concerns at

validation meetings, it became clear to me that my educational values included my

belief in the importance of having empathy with learners by trying to understand their

  45

problems. They stemmed from my love of education and desire to teach. I wanted to

assist and support learners, in the same way that I was supported. From these

realisations, my value of scaffolding emerged. I was not living these values in practice

as being a professional development co-ordinator, mainly concerned with organisation

and administration, I did not see myself as an educator.

With regard to the Institute’s synchronous online professional development courses, I

believe that online learners who have little prior knowledge or experience and/or poor

IT skills are in need of additional support so that they can access and negotiate live

online seminars. They are also in need of general procedural guidance. I have not been

doing all I can to support online learners and because of this I have not been living my

values in practice. The focus of my research is underpinned by my values of empathy

and scaffolding. Through attempting to understand the learner’s needs and difficulties, I

intend to find ways in which to assist them. In the implementation of my study, I apply

what I have learned through my research of the conceptual themes of scaffolding and

design, to the creation of a support designed to assist and educate learners.

Web-based tutorial

A number of months ago the possibility of creating an online demonstration, covering

online seminars in general, had been briefly discussed by my colleague and myself.

However at the time, other work commitments took over and the demonstration was

never created. I returned to this general idea and I decided to investigate how I could

apply the characteristics of scaffolding to the design and creation of a web-based

tutorial. In creating the tutorial, I aim to scaffold learners by providing them with

‘support, guidance and assistance’ to prepare them to participate in synchronous online

professional development courses (Tsai 2011, p247). A web-based tutorial could be

placed on our website and be easily accessed by our geographically dispersed

membership. Learners could access it anytime, anywhere and as many times as they

want before actually joining a live online seminar. It gives learners the opportunity to

engage with the content ‘on their own terms’ (Su and Kuo 2010, p.320).

  46

4.3 Cycle One In this section I detail the initial creation of the web-based tutorial (AV Appendix A). I

designed a web-based tutorial to act as a procedural, static support that can be accessed

at will by learners (Kim and Hannafin 2011; Saye and Brush 2002).

4.3.1 Plan

Initial data analysis

My initial data analysis concentrated on identifying the learning problems to be

addressed and the learners’ needs. These issues were highlighted by Huang (2005,

p.233) in the multimedia tutorial design literature and Wood Bruner and Ross (1976) in

the scaffolding literature. The customer base for live online seminars is very wide as it

includes the Institute membership of over 4,500, and non-members, who find the

seminar content relevant. As this is the case I was not in the position to conduct an

Institute wide survey to establish the learner characteristics and technical skill base as

recommended by Yelinek (2008). Instead, I to understand the learners’ needs I

concentrated on identifying the issues that cause the most difficulty for learners

accessing and participating in live online seminars. There was support for this approach

in the literature. Saye and Brush (2002, p.81) advocated the use of hard scaffolds, which

they defined as ‘static supports that can be anticipated and planned in advance based on

typical student difficulties with a task’.

To identify the learning problems, I examined completed online feedback forms from

previous live online seminars where learners detailed any problems they experienced

(Appendix J). The feedback forms also provided information about whether or not the

learners had any prior experience using WebEx and whether they experienced problems

accessing the live online seminar. The Finance Bill seminar is one of the Irish Tax

Institute’s flagship events that is run after the release of the Finance Bill by the

Department of Finance each year (Appendix G). It is one of the Institute’s most well

attended events, and in February 2011 the Institute also offered participants the option

to participate online by watching a live online, streamed broadcast via WebEx. There

were approximately 80 live online participants, the largest online audience at any

synchronous online professional development course so far. An online evaluation form

was sent to online participants after the course via Survey Monkey (Appendix J). Of

those that completed the evaluation form, 83.3 per cent had not previously used WebEx.

  47

While most of the respondents found the live online seminar easy to access, 22.2 per

cent had a little difficulty and 5.6 per cent found it very difficult. Comments left on the

evaluation forms indicated that at least two attendees had difficulties navigating the

WebEx screen, as they mentioned that they could not see the slides during some of the

seminar. Back in the office we could only assume that they had clicked away from the

slide tab in the live online seminar as a number of us had also viewed the live online

seminar and the slides had remained on screen throughout.

The slides went blank during the presentation. I would be obliged if this wouldn’t

happen in future.

It would have been useful if the camera angle had shown the slides behind the

speakers. Or it may have helped if it was possible to print off slides/notes from the

website prior to the Seminar. For some of the worked examples it was difficult to

follow as I could not see the text. So either being able to view the slides or have

the slides would have combated this.

It was also apparent that some participants were not aware that they had been emailed

the seminar slides and paper along with the access instructions in advance of the live

online seminar.

Navigation problems were also apparent in feedback received from the Revenue Audits

and Revenue Powers live online seminar, which took place in September 2010 (See

Appendix H for a description of the Revenue Audits and Revenue Powers seminar and

Appendix J for the evaluation by online participants):

At times the slide show was out of sync with the actual presentation and so this

was a little confusing. It should be made clear that the literature should be printed

out beforehand and that clicking on any tab on internet explorer will disconnect

you from the seminar.

I also examined a MNA survey that was distributed to all Institute members in March

2011 (Appendix B). When asked, “How would you rate your experience participating in

online seminars” it was again evident that many members were not aware that slides

  48

and notes were sent in advance.

Send notes/slides in advance

One member also suggested that a guide as to how online seminars worked would be

useful while others mentioned that live online seminars can be difficult to access.

A guide to how it works in advance would be useful

Difficult to access sometimes and audio can be poor on occasions.

Webinar technology is a bit cumbersome

I also looked back at emails received from participants. One participant in particular

experienced a number of difficulties logging on and using the chat facility (Appendix

K). See extract below:

Hi Elspeth,

A few comments on my online attendance at this morning’s seminar:

• When I went through the log in procedures, I wasn’t asked for a password.

Instead a “popup” appeared which gave various options in relation to

joining the conference. It was only through trial & error that I eventually

succeeded in getting connected. If I was “attending” a future seminar, I

wouldn’t know what to do as I’m not sure what triggered the connection this

time.

• I tried to send a message through the Chat Box and although I followed the

instructions, I couldn’t type in my question.

In establishing the learning problems, I relied heavily upon my own observations as the

point of contact for learners experiencing technical difficulties when joining a live

online seminar. I also spoke to two colleagues who had provided similar support.

During the Finance Bill 2011 online seminar, my colleague Evelyn had received over

20 phone calls from learners who experienced difficulties logging in, getting their sound

to work or leaving the live online seminar. During a previous live online seminar

another colleague received a call from a gentleman who did not know how to click on

the URL link shown in the access email. In my own experience, clicking on the ‘Call

  49

using computer’ button to connect audio was the most widely reported issue that

learners experienced difficulties with.

Through analysing the documentary evidence and my own observations I identified the

main issues causing difficulty for learners. These issues were as follows:

1. Joining the live online seminar:

a. Clicking on the URL link given in the invitation email.

b. Entering name and email address.

2. Connecting up their audio:

a. Testing speakers.

b. Clicking on the ‘Call using computer’ button to hear the live online

seminar.

3. Navigating the live online seminar page.

4. Using the chat facility:

a. Choosing who to direct a question to.

b. Where to type their question.

5. Leaving the live online seminar.

6. Additional information:

a. Many people were unaware that they had been sent copies of the seminar

slides and notes in advance.

While the web-based tutorial would not be individually tailored for each learner, I

believed that by concentrating on these common problems I could cater for multiple

users and their individual zones of proximal development. Catering for a wide learner

base and multiple zones of proximal development was important to me as it was

highlighted in papers dealing with effective software scaffolding, by Sharma and

Hannafin (2007), Shapiro (2007), and Putambekar and Hübscher (2005).

4.3.2 Act

I then began to design and create the web-based tutorial. In my design I considered what

I had learned through researching the literature surrounding the design of web-based

tutorials and scaffolding, in particular, guidelines to consider when designing software

  50

scaffolds. This section is structured under the main design guidelines that I considered

relevant in my design.

Teaching strategy

From my own observations and experience using online tutorials to learn about software

applications, and through conversations with colleagues, I initially thought that a screen

recording, demonstrating the issues that cause difficulties would be the best approach to

take when creating the web-based tutorial.

I was thinking of creating two detailed instructive online demonstrations using

screen recording software. The first would explain exactly how one access a live

online seminar and how they can interact with the speaker.

Reflective journal – 5 December 2010

I found support for using screen captures in the literature. Su and Kuo (2010, p.323)

advised that situation simulation, using screen capturing, is the best strategy to use

when demonstrating a procedural task. An example of a procedural task would be

navigating software and proceeding step-by-step to reach a certain goal (Ibid.). Doering

and Veletsianos (2007) used screen capture videos as static scaffolds to teach students

how to use GIS software.

I also decided to introduce an active learning strategy by including interactions. I placed

three interactive buttons at key points in the tutorial where, if actually joining and

participating in a live online seminar, learners would be required to click a box or a link

to proceed to the next step. I included one final interaction where the learner simulates

entering a question into the chat facility (see Appendix L for a list of interactions). A

study carried out by Zhang et al (2006) had also highlighted the importance of learner-

content interaction.

E-Authoring software

After researching various e-authoring tools, I decided that Adobe Captivate would best

serve my purposes. I outlined the various features and functions of Captivate in Chapter

two. I had not previously used Captivate so it took me some time to familiarise myself

  51

with the software. To be honest I found the process quite frustrating. While I had used

other screen capture software, the Captivate interface was very new to me. As I

recorded in my reflective journal (See Appendix J) my difficulties learning how to use

the software helped me to identify and empathise with the learners I hoped to assist.

I would consider myself to be quite proficient using software and would generally

find it easy to quickly pick up the new skills …..I would generally explore the

software myself testing out the different functions until I figure out how to use it.

However, I had never used Captivate before…., I found it quite difficult to use and

impossible to intuitively know what functions to use or buttons to press to get it to

do what I wanted. I had in fact hit a brick wall that I could not get over without

some outside assistance.

Reflective Journal 14 May 2011

I ended up accessing a number of web-based screen capture tutorials on Captivate,

which really helped me to learn how to use the software. I took this experience as a sign

that I was on the right track in creating a web-based tutorial to clarify difficult issues for

learners.

I first recorded the screen capture demonstration sections and narration. Captivate

separates sections of recorded content into slides, which I individually edited. Figure 4.1

shows a screen shot of one of the web-based tutorial slides within the Captivate editing

facility. (I have included screenshots of each slide from the final version of the web-

based tutorial in Appendix L.)

  52

Figure 4.1 – Screenshot of slide 18 – The Chat Facility

Outlining objectives

When recording the tutorial, I introduced the issues that would be covered at the very

beginning to manage learner expectations. The importance of managing learner

expectations when creating a web-based tutorial or any type of software scaffold was

specified by both Yelinek et al (2008) and Sharma and Hannafin (2007). By outlining

the objectives and then proceeding to deal with each objective in a procedural

systematic manner, I hoped to make the ‘cognitive processes’ of the learning tasks

explicit as was advised by Sharma and Hannafin (2007, p.33).

Timing and Structure

The web-based tutorial followed a sequential structure. I designed it in this way as I

thought that it would be important for first time users to view the complete step-by-step

process of joining and participating in a live online seminar from receiving the initial

access email to leaving the seminar. I also chose this approach because Shapiro (2007,

p.34) recommended giving low prior knowledge learners a prescribed pathway to

follow. When complete, the tutorial was just under ten minutes long. I was happy with

  53

this as Su and Kuo (2010) advised that short web-based tutorials keep the attention of

learners.

Yelinek et al (2008) had recommended that tutorials be broken down into even smaller

segments that learners can access at will. I considered adding a table of contents so that

experienced learners could navigate directly to an area that interested them as

recommended by Yelinek et al (2008), thus giving more control to high prior

knowledge learners as recommended by Shapiro (2010, p.34). However, I decided

against doing this as I thought the tutorial was too short and that the control bar

functions would be sufficient for learners who wanted to skip ahead.

Multimedia

I included a mix of multimedia to represent the content in the web-based tutorial in

different ways and to ensure that it was ‘sensitive to learner assumptions, needs and

differences’ as highlighted by Sharma and Hannafin (2007). The literature also stated

that graphics, video and other media could help to engage learners and keep their

interest (Brandt 1997 as cited by Liaw 2008, p.869). A major section of the tutorial was

comprised of demonstrative screen recordings with explanatory narration. When editing

the individual slides, I included text captions to highlight areas I wanted to draw

particular attention to, as the importance of using a number of representational media

was highlighted in the literature (Ibid). I inserted additional blank slides into some

sections of the web-based tutorial so that I could add animated text to summarise points

being made in the narrative. I inserted images to draw attention to the control bar

features, and to highlight where a video of the presenter is shown on the WebEx screen.

Usability

My research of the literature identified a number of usability guidelines to follow when

creating a user interface. In creating the tutorial I was guided by those specifically

tailored to the creation of web-based tutorials, and those that I found applicable to my

design. Mackey and Ho (2008) maintain that web-based tutorials should have quality

content. I tried to ensure that the subject matter was contextually relevant, as

recommended by Sharma and Hannafin (2007) in the scaffolding literature, by dealing

with the issues that had previously caused difficulties for learners. Where possible, I

used the learner’s own language when recording the narration as Nielsen (1993)

  54

highlights the importance of doing this. Unfortunately this was not possible in all

respects as some learners may not be familiar with some information technology and

web-conferencing terms used. However, I hoped that the combined use of

demonstration and captions in addition to narration would clarify any terms learners

were unfamiliar with.

Mackey and Ho (2007) specify the importance of high quality audio and video. The

audio capture on Captivate produces high quality audio. Background noise can be

silenced and overall volume can be leveled. The screen captures and slide recordings

were of a high quality. I was a little concerned that some of the images I imported were

not of a high enough quality, so where possible, I replaced them with clearer versions. I

also chose a screen size that would enable learners with commonly used browsers to see

the full screen without having to scroll and to suit browsers with a low resolution as also

highlighted by Mackey and Ho (2007).

Flash videos as published by Captivate, incorporate a generic player or control bar,

which includes buttons to enable users to: play, pause, rewind, and fast-forward, skip

back, skip ahead and control the volume of the web-based tutorial giving users control

of the tutorial. Mackey and Ho (2007) specified that user control was a key usability

feature, as did Zhang et al (2006). I included a short section in the web-based tutorial

explaining how to use the player control bar. Yelinek et al (2008) had recommended

including a section to demonstrate how to navigate a Captivate web-based tutorial is

their study. Flash videos also include a status bar, which indicates how long it will take

the video to load, thus managing user expectations.

To ensure consistency in the design, I used the same colour scheme, font, and relative

text size in all the textual slides and captions where possible. I used the Abobe Red

template for informative captions and to differentiate I used a bright green template for

captions instructing learners to interact with the tutorial. As the WebEx screen can be

quite crowded with text and pop-ups, I thought that it would also be a good idea to

highlight important features of headings in yellow although this not specified in the

literature I reviewed.

  55

4.3.3 Observe

Six participants acted as a pilot group to view and evaluate the web-based tutorial once

it was complete. Five of the participants, Úna, Angela, Evelyn, Judy and Carol are

colleagues of mine. Úna is also a member of the Irish Tax Institute. While not all of the

participants had participated in a live online seminar before, each was aware of the

context of the web-based tutorial. I also asked my critical friend Maeve to participate in

the pilot test. While she was aware of the context of the tutorial, she does not work in

the Institute, so that meant that she was completely unfamiliar with the Institute’s live

online seminars.

While I intended to publish the final web-based tutorial in .swf format to place on a

website, for the purposes of the pilot test the participants viewed a .app version of the

web-based tutorial stored locally on a MacBook Pro. This meant that I could record the

test with Silverback – guerrilla usability software, which I had installed on the

MacBook Pro. Each participant viewed the tutorial alone. It took between

approximately ten and twelve minutes for each to view the tutorial. When they were

finished, I interviewed them about their experience. On reflection, some of the questions

I asked may have been leading so I decided to only use their suggested improvements as

data in this research. The one exception to this, was in the case of my colleague Evelyn

who had previously provided support for learners participating in live online seminars.

She was asked if she thought the areas that participants had difficulty with, in her

experience, had been covered by the tutorial. I included her response to this question in

this section.

Suggested Improvements

After viewing the tutorial the participants suggested that the following changes be made

to the web-based tutorial:

Evelyn recommended a number of changes. Firstly, that the tutorial mention that,

when the learner adds in their name and email address in slide 18 “Join meeting”,

the name they enter will appear on the participants’ list in the live online seminar.

Secondly, she recommended I mention that the email address the learner enters,

need not be the one they used when ordering the live online seminar. Thirdly, she

suggested that I include a section outlining how the learner would check the volume

  56

on their computer. Finally she recommended two changes to the WebEx system set-

up that did not come under the scope of this study (AV Appendix B).

I had overlooked the issue with regard to the learner’s name and email address when

designing the tutorial. As I could not be sure what type of computer or what version

operating system online learners may be using when viewing the tutorial or

participating in a live online seminar I chose not to include a demonstration of how to

check the volume on their computer and it might confuse issues further.

Judy noted that the pace of the tutorial was a little slow when changing from one

screen to the next in some places (AV Appendix C).

Úna recommended that an interaction be added to slide sixteen, that deals with

maximising the chat box, or alternatively, that the action be emphasised (AV

Appendix D).

Maeve found that the text on slide two ‘What this tutorial will cover slide’ moved

too quickly across the screen and did not remain on screen long enough to read (AV

Appendix G). In our conversation afterwards she told me that she found interaction

five a little confusing. The learner is asked to type the word question into the chat

box. She thought that it would be best if the learner could type whatever they want.

However, as the software requires that a specified word or phrase is entered, she

recommended that I emphasise the word question using inverted commas.

Angela and Carol did not recommend any specific improvements (Appendix F and

Appendix E).

Positive Feedback

I received some positive feedback from Evelyn, who had previously given technical

support to live online seminar participants. I asked, if in her opinion, the main areas

where learners experienced difficulties were covered. From her experience, she agreed

that they were (AV Appendix H from 26 seconds to 1 minutes 56 seconds).

  57

Indirect Observation

I recorded each of the participants testing the tutorial using Silverback – guerrilla

usability software. As explained in Chapter three, this captured the screen and

highlighted mouse clicks, and video recorded the participants’ faces as they watched

and interacted with the tutorial. This added method proved to be very beneficial in

analysing the participants’ reactions to the tutorial. When analysing the screen and

video recordings, I noticed areas where the participants experienced difficulties with the

tutorial, some of which they had not mentioned when asked if they could suggest any

improvements. As much of the tutorial was demonstrative, in analysing the screen

recordings I mainly concentrated on how the participants reacted to the five interactions

in the tutorial.

Evelyn showed some confusion when asked to click on interactive buttons to

proceed to the next sections of the tutorial in interaction one at 1 minute 48 seconds

and interaction three at 3 minutes 55 seconds. In both cases she first tried to click

on the instructive captions pointing at the interactive buttons rather than the buttons

themselves (AV Appendix H).

Maeve’s difficulty with interaction five can also be seen on the screen recording

from 7 minutes 38 seconds to 8 minutes 54 seconds (AV Appendix M).

Carol (AV Appendix K), Evelyn (Appendix H, 7 minutes 54 seconds to 8 minutes,

18 seconds) and Judy (AV Appendix I, 7 minutes 24 seconds to 7 minutes 42

seconds) tested the tutorial on the same day using the same MacBook Pro. This

caused difficulties for Evelyn and Judy when completing interaction five. The

tutorial had not refreshed since Carol had typed in the word ‘question’ and the word

automatically appeared when Evelyn and Judy and came to that section of the

tutorial. This might explain why more participants did not report problems

understanding this interaction as Maeve did. Silverback crashed in the middle of

Úna’s test so we had to restart it. It was not restarted at the right time, so she also

missed interaction five (AV Appendix J).

  58

Figure 4.2 – Screen Capture Usability Test – Úna

From watching the screen recording I observed that the web-tutorial the no longer

displayed the section in which I demonstrated using the chat facility (AV Appendix A –

slide 18). I am unsure how this feature was lost and I missed it when testing the tutorial

myself.

Validation Meeting

At a validation meeting in DCU on Wednesday 1 June 2011, I presented my web-based

tutorial to my validation group who provided me with some valuable feedback. They

pointed out that I had not included any information on installing software to run WebEx

for the first time, a very important topic for first time users. I had overlooked this when

designing the tutorial, as I had previously used WebEx on the computer I used to record

the web-based tutorial, and had installed the necessary software some time before. They

also suggested that I manage learner expectations by advising learners that they will be

automatically muted when they join an actual live online seminar, and can only

communicate online by using the chat facility. Managing user expectations was

explicitly mentioned in Sharma and Hannafin’s (2007) guidelines for creating a

software scaffold. The group questioned the lack of a table of contents and a direct link

to each of the sections of the tutorial. I had discussed this with my critical friend after

she had watched the tutorial, and had explained that I thought that the flash player

controls would suffice, despite the fact that the literature advised including an

  59

interactive table of contents to give experienced users more control over content

(Yelinek et al 2007). They also recommended that I remove the image of a video

camera in the video section of the WebEx screen, and replace it with a photograph, as

the video camera image might confuse learners.

4.3.4 Reflect

The evaluation of the web-based tutorial and the data generated made me reflect on my

own practice and whether or not I was developing my values through creating a web-

based tutorial as a scaffolding tool for online learners. I believe that in designing the

web-based tutorial I considered and implemented a number of scaffolding features, as

identified in the literature I reviewed. In that sense, I believe that my value of

scaffolding was developing through this cycle. However, it was apparent from the

feedback received that in a number of ways I was not conscious of and considering

learners’ needs as I had planned to. Empathising with the learners’ difficulties and

frustrations and seeking a way to assist them had been the starting point of this study.

However, the feedback I received in this cycle told me that while I had analysed the

difficulties that previous online learners had experienced, I had overlooked issues that

could confuse and concern first time users. I had also overlooked guidance in the

literature, highlighted by Yelinek et al (2008), for accommodating high prior knowledge

learners and those with advanced IT skills by not including a table of contents. In that

respect I had not truly put myself in the place of the learners I was trying to assist and

had not been ‘sensitive to learner assumptions, needs and differences’ (Sharma and

Hannafin 2007, p.42). By not displaying the objectives for sufficient duration I had not

explicated the cognitive process.

Although I designed the tutorial as a scaffold that could be suitable for a range of

learner ability, my own expert knowledge of the online seminar system led me to

make assumptions in designing the tutorial and negate my value of scaffolding

learners.

I was negating my values as I did not consider that some learners might

experience confusion, frustration and feelings of inadequacy watching the actual

tutorial because I had neglected to give them enough time to read the topics to be

  60

covered, by not making the interactions as clear as they can be and by not giving

them the tools to efficiently navigate the tutorial.

Reflective journal 6 June 2011 (Appendix I)

I had tried to cater for a range of abilities in my tutorial but realised after receiving

feedback from the pilot and validation groups that I had not been successful in doing

this. While I had developed my value of scaffolding, I had not been considerate of some

learners’ needs.

However on a positive note, by engaging with the participants I have received first-hand

feedback on how I can improve the support offered by the tutorial. This has also

reinforced the value of collaborative learning for me and has shown me once again that

many heads are better than one. In cycle two I have implemented changes in the tutorial,

as advised by the pilot and validation groups’ recommendations, and my own

observations, which I hope will ensure that the web-based tutorial supports learners of

varying ability and experience.

4.4 Cycle Two

4.4.1 Plan

The second cycle began immediately after the first. In the observation phase of cycle

one I had compiled and analysed the suggested improvements from the pilot and

validation groups. In cycle two I planned to implement the improvements suggested by

the pilot and validation groups along with some changes of my own, and evaluate the

tutorial once again.

4.4.2 Act

On the advice of my critical friend Maeve, I removed the animation from the text on

slide two “What will this tutorial cover?”, and slide twenty two, “Leaving an online

seminar”. The text and narration are still synchronised but the points appear earlier and

remain on screen long enough to be read and assimilated. I also reworded the caption

for interaction five to emphasise that the word “question” should be typed in the chat

box by placing the word question in quotation marks and increasing the font size.

  61

After discussions with my validation group, I decided to add an interactive table of

contents. I also edited the narration on slide 2 “What will this tutorial cover?” to advise

learners that they can skip to the section of their choice by clicking on the relevant entry

on the table of contents on the left hand slide of the screen. I included the table of

contents to cater for high prior knowledge learners who benefit from having more

control over their environment and do not necessarily need a well-structured and

sequential approach to the learning material (Yelinek et al 2008; Shapiro 2007, p34). I

also resized the tutorial so that learners can still see the full screen with the table of

contents added. Taking the advice of my validation group, I added a new slide after

slide eight, that informs learners about installing the software necessary to open WebEx

for the first time on their computer. Again on the advice of my validation group, I edited

the narration in slide twelve to inform learners that they will be automatically muted

when entering the live online seminar. I also replaced the picture of a video camera in

the video panel of the WebEx screen with a silhouette of a person.

I reworded the captions for interactions one, three and four to clarify where learners

should click to proceed to the next section of the tutorial, as when I analysed Evelyn’s

silverback screen recording user test I observed that she was confused as to whether she

should click on the captions or the interactive buttons. On Evelyn’s suggestion, I added

narration to slide eight “Join Meeting”, to specify that the name learners enter into the

name field would appear in a participants’ list in the live online seminar page. I also

clarified that the email address entered does not have to be the one used to order the live

online seminar. On Úna’s recommendation, I inserted a zoom area to slide sixteen “The

Chat Facility”, to magnify the arrow participants have to click if they want to maximise

the chat facility.

Through watching the silverback usability recordings I realised that the demonstration

of typing into the chat box was no longer displayed on slide eighteen of the original

web-based tutorial. I rectified this in the updated version.

This time round I published the web-based tutorial in a .SWF format that could be

placed on a website. I loaded the tutorial onto an ftp server from which it would stream.

I generated an url to the web-based tutorial that could be linked to, or embedded in, a

  62

webpage. The web-based tutorial could also be accessed directly by clicking on the link

generated.

Figure 4.3 – Updated Web-Based Tutorial (AV Appendix N)

4.4.3 Observe

The first evaluation was a pilot test so I recruited four new participants for the second

evaluation; my colleagues Joanne, Miriam, Laura and Karen. The group were of mixed

technical ability and Laura is a member of the Institute who had prior experience

participating in live online seminars. Using the data collected from the evaluation, I

planned to establish whether the web-based tutorial was usable and if the participants

considered it to be an effective learning tool. I purposely chose a group with different

levels of technical ability and prior knowledge to establish whether the web-based

tutorial would be suitable for a wide range of learners. By establishing these points, I

hoped to generate evidence that I was learning to scaffold learners and was showing

empathy by being sensitive to learners’ needs. I also emailed a link to the web-based

tutorial, to my critical friend Maeve, who had viewed the first version, to get feedback

on the changes I implemented after the first cycle evaluation.

  63

I forwarded the link to the web-based tutorial by email to each participant. Each

participant viewed the tutorial on a different windows personal computer (PC) and the

tests took approximately ten minutes.

I asked the participant group to complete an online questionnaire to evaluate the

usability of the tutorial and their perceived learning. I created the questionnaire on

Survey Gizmo (http://www.surveygizmo.com/) and established that it would take each

participant approximately four minutes to complete. As a pilot, I sent the questionnaire

to a colleague to complete prior to sending it to the participants. I then emailed a link to

the questionnaire to each participant and asked them to complete the questionnaire

directly after viewing the tutorial.

Analysis of Questionnaire Results

The full questionnaire results can be found in Appendix M.

Although I was aware that the participants had different levels of IT skills and prior

knowledge of participating in live online seminars when I requested that they be part of

the test, I wanted to establish this through the questionnaire. The first three

questionnaire statements dealt with the participant’s level of computer skills and their

prior knowledge of participating in a live online seminar. To the statement “I am a

novice computer user” one participant agreed, one disagreed and two were neutral. Of

the four participants only one had previously accessed a live online seminar.

I am a novice computer user

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

25% 50% 25%

Table 4.1

I am an expert computer user

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

50% 50%

Table 4.2

  64

I have previously participated in a live online seminar

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

25% 50% 25%

Table 4.3

The next set of statements dealt with the usability and design of the web-based tutorial.

Mackey and Ho (2007) highlight high quality audio and visuals as an important web-

usability issue, and all participants either agreed or strongly agreed that both the quality

of the audio and screen recording video was good.

The audio quality of the web-based tutorial was good

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

25% 75%

Table 4.4

The screen recording video quality of the web-based tutorial was good

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

25% 75%

Table 4.5

Judy from the pilot group had thought that some of the tutorial was paced too slowly.

The participants that evaluated the updated tutorial strongly agreed that the audio and

video were well paced.

The speed of the audio was at an appropriate level of instruction

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

100%

Table 4.6

  65

The speed of the screen recording video was at an appropriate level of instruction

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

100%

Table 4.7

The participants also agreed that the audio and video were well synchronised. Mackey

and Ho (2007) emphasised the importance of synchronised multimedia in their study on

usability and its impact on perceived learning.

The audio and screen recording video of the web-based tutorial were well synchronised

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

100%

Table 4.8

I had included captions in the web-based tutorial as I thought that additional textual

prompts and representations would be beneficial to the learners. To evaluate their use

the questionnaire stated “The use of text captions was good” and the “The audio and

text captions of the web-based tutorial were well synchronised”, to which all

participants either agreed or strongly agreed. While these statements evaluated the

usability of the tutorial they were also posed to establish whether the participants valued

a number of representational forms of multimedia being used. The literature claimed

that using a variety of multimedia has a positive effect on learning (Vaughan 2008;

Brandt 1997 as cited by Liaw 2008, p.869).

The use of text captions was good

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

100%

Table 4.9

  66

The audio and text captions of the web-based tutorial were well synchronised

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

N/A

25% 75%

Table 4.10

The participants also agreed that the colour schemes used remained consistent

throughout the tutorial

The colour schemes used in the web-based tutorial were consistent

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

25% 75%

Table 4.11

I had concerns about the screen size of the tutorial, as I had to decrease the size of the

screen to accommodate the table of contents. All of the participants either agreed or

strongly agreed that the screen size was optimal for viewing. However each participant

had viewed the tutorial on PCs with a similar specification.

The screen size of the web-based tutorial was ideal for viewing

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

25% 75%

Table 4.12

Statements 13 and 14 dealt with learner control. The menu controls and table of

contents allowed learners to randomly access content and interact with content. Zhang

et al (2006) found that students, who completed tutorials that allowed for random

access, achieved better results and reported greater levels of satisfaction than those who

completed linear video courses. Participants were not tested on the content of the web-

based tutorial; however they were asked whether they thought the menu control and

table of contents were convenient features. All participants either agreed or strongly

  67

agreed that the menu control was convenient, with the exception of one who found the

menu control statement not applicable. These findings help to establish the usability of

the web-based tutorial by addressing the factors highlighted by Mackey & Ho (2007,

p.394), ‘accessible navigation for play, pause, stop, rewind, and fast-forward’.

Menu control of the web-based tutorial was convenient

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

75% 25%

Table 4.13

I had not included an interactive table of contents in the first version of the web-based

tutorial, however through receiving feedback at a validation meeting in DCU, and by

reflecting on the literature I had researched, I decided to include it to cater for

experienced high prior knowledge learners. I cannot prove that it will assist high prior

knowledge learners but all of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that it was a

convenient feature.

The table of contents was convenient

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

25% 75%

Table 4.14

Statement 15 moved on to the actual content of the tutorial. It stated, “The content was

easy to understand”. All four participants strongly agreed with this statement indicating

that the content was clear. In designing the tutorial and scripting the narration, I had

aimed to put myself in the position of the learner and explain the procedural steps

involved in participating in a live online seminar clearly and using the learners’ own

language where possible. The following comments were left by participants when asked

if they could recommend any improvements.

No I can't, I thought it was very clear and easy to understand.

  68

No. well explained.

An additional comment was also included:

It was very clear and would encourage new users to online seminars well done

great job

The content was easy to understand

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

100%

Table 4.15

Statements 16 and 17 dealt with the interactive simulations in the tutorial. By including

interactions I hoped to encourage learner content interaction and enhance the learning

effectiveness of the tutorial. In the initial pilot study, both Evelyn and Maeve

experienced difficulties with some of the interactions and I had made some changes to

attempt to rectify this. This time around the participants agreed that the use of

interactions was beneficial and that the screen moved quickly to the next section once

the interactions were complete. One of the participants also left the following comment:

The tutorial was very clear and I liked the use of captions and the way I could

interact with it.

The use of interactive simulations was beneficial, Once the interactions were completed

the next sections displayed quickly

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

50% 50%

25% 75%

Table 4.16

  69

All of the participants strongly agreed that the objectives of the tutorial were clearly

outlined. This was important as the objectives were listed to manage learner

expectations. By clearly stating the objectives and proceeding to cover each section

sequentially, I attempted to make the cognitive process of the tutorial explicit as

recommended by Sharma and Hannafin (2007).

The objectives of the web-based tutorial were clear

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

100%

Table 4.17

The next set of statements dealt with the perceived learning effectiveness of the web-

based tutorial. All four participants strongly agreed that the web-based tutorial was

effective in helping them understand how to participate in a live online seminar.

The web-based tutorial was effective in helping me to understand how to participate in a

live online seminar

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

100%

Table 4.18

They also strongly agreed that it was an efficient method through which to learn how to

participate in a live online seminar.

The web-based tutorial was an efficient way to learn how to participate in a live online

seminar

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

100%

Table 4.19

  70

The tutorial was designed with the intention that it would be placed on the Institute’s

website so that it could be accessed at will by learners, to clarify any difficulties they

may experience participating in live online seminars. The participants were asked if

they would have to view the tutorial more than once before participating in a live online

seminar. Two of the participants disagreed and two agreed. Figure 4.1 below, shows

the relation these responses had to the statements regarding computer skills and prior

experience participating in a live online seminar.

Figure 4.4 - Questionnaire Findings

The final statement asked if participants would agree that the live online seminar would

reduce the need to contact the Institute for technical assistance. While all participants

agreed with this statement, one of the participants made the following comment:

I have said above that it should reduce the need for contacting the service

provider with technical questions and I do think it should. In my experience

though people are less likely to take the time to go through something and attempt

it themselves if they think it's quicker to just call someone particularly where IT

systems are involved. I think the communication of a tool such as this is also very

1   2   3   4   5  

I  am  a  novice  computer  user  

I  am  an  expert  computer  user  

I  have  previously  par9cipated  in  a  live  online  seminar  

I  would  have  to  watch  the  web-­‐based  tutorial  more  than  once  before  

par9cipa9ng  in  a  live  online  seminar  

Strongly  Agree                                                                                              Strongly  Disagree  

104  Complete  

103  Complete  

102  Complete  

101  Complete  

  71

important to train people into using it as a first resort but that's something to

consider outside of the web-based tutorial itself.

Watching the web-based tutorial would reduce the need to contact the live online

seminar provider with technical questions

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

25% 75%

Table 4.20

Feedback from Critical Friend

I also sent my critical friend a link to the updated tutorial detailing the changes that I

had made and she sent back the following response (Appendix N):

Maeve Hennessy to me

show details 12 Jun (1 day ago)

Hi Elspeth,

I was able to read and had the time to comprehend the text on 'What will this

tutorial cover?', now that the animation has been removed. I found that a great

help.

Although I had not felt it was necessary on my first viewing, I find the new table

of contents very helpful and practical, making this tutorial much more effective

and professional.

I had no difficulty this time following the instructions to type in the word

'question', whereas I had been confused previously, when I thought it must mean

to type in my own or some other question. The changes here really clarify it for

me.

Should the upper half of the new page dealing with installation of software, be

clearer, as it seems a little difficult to see?

Can the page be resized so the top and bottom of the page may be seen at the

same time - especially in order to see where to click, as per instructions?

All in all, it is very clear and well set out. Your voice has a perfect tone for the

job, being crystal clear and pleasant on the ear. The pace both of speech and the

text is just right.

  72

Many thanks,

Maeve

Although I was not too concerned that learners would have problems opening the web-

based tutorial, I checked the time it would take to buffer and open on my own home

computer by accessing the URL link I had generated. It took less than twenty seconds to

download and displayed the download progress bar in the interim.

4.4.4 Reflect

The results from the questionnaire and in particular the feedback received from my

critical friend indicated that the changes I had implemented in cycle two improved the

web-based tutorial. By recruiting participants with varied IT skills and prior experience,

I hoped to discover whether the web-based tutorial could suit a range of learners’ needs.

The questionnaire results show that all of the participants found the web-based tutorial

to be usable. However, my critical friend could not view the full screen of the web-

based tutorial without scrolling and she also thought that the software installation

section might have been slightly unclear. So while the questionnaire results indicate that

in terms of usability, I was conscious of and catered for, different learners’ needs, there

are still some areas that I can work on.

The results also indicated that I used the learner’s language as recommended by Nielsen

(1993) as the participants and my critical friend all found the content clear and easy to

understand. I think that I successfully managed user expectations as the participants all

agreed that the objectives of the tutorial were well outlined.

Mackey and Ho (2007) determined that usability had a positive impact on perceived

learning. While I cannot empirically prove this link in my study, the findings from the

questionnaire showed that the participants found the web-based tutorial to be an

effective and efficient way to learn how to participate in a live online seminar. I think

that these findings are evidence that the web-based tutorial contained useful information

and was contextually relevant, which is an important feature of software scaffolds as

highlighted by Sharma and Hannafin (2007).

  73

Overall, the results of the cycle two evaluation were very positive. Through creating a

usable support, which learners, with different levels of experience and IT skills, agreed

was an effective learning tool, I believe that I was developing and showing my value of

scaffolding. By implementing the recommended changes in order to better suit learner

characteristics and manage learner expectations I believe that I was applying some of

the scaffolding design guidelines as recommended in the literature (Sharma and

Hannafin 2007). By considering and catering for a range of learner needs, I believe that

I was displaying my value of having empathy with learners.

4.5 Reflection on my Research As I was unable to test the web-based tutorial with real users I cannot definitively say

that it will support and scaffold learning. However, the evidence from the two action

cycles indicates that I created an effective learning support for learners having difficulty

participating in Irish Tax Institute live online seminars. On evaluation, the participants

in cycle two found the tutorial clear, easy to understand, usable and an effective

learning tool. While I cannot claim that I have scaffolded learners, I can claim that I am

learning to scaffold. In the design and creation of the web-based tutorial in cycle one

and in the improvements I made to it in cycle two, where possible I implemented my

knowledge of scaffolding along with web-based tutorial design guidelines. I had gained

my knowledge of these topics through reviewing the themes central to this research

project. From this perspective I believe that, through my own research and by creating

the web-based tutorial, I am learning how to scaffold a synchronous online professional

development course.

From my review of the literature, I have asked myself whether the tutorial itself could

be termed a scaffold. The web-based tutorial was not individually tailored for each

learner and as it is not conditioned to automatically fade, under Pol, Volman and

Beishuizen’s (2010, p.274-275) criteria, the tutorial cannot be considered scaffolding.

However, Doering and Veletsianos (2007) did describe a screen capture video as

scaffold in their study. In creating the web-based tutorial, I also considered the theory of

the tutee where possible, and in my initial data analysis I investigated the theory of the

task as recommended by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976). The findings from cycle two

indicate that participants found the web-based tutorial to be an effective learning tool,

  74

leading me to assume that it has the potential to help learners to ‘solve a problem, carry

out a task or achieve a goal, which would be beyond his unassisted efforts’ (Wood,

Bruner and Ross 1976, p.90). This type of assistance could potentially assist a learner to

progress from his/her zone of actual development to his/her zone of proximal

development (Vygotsky 1976). When placed on the Institute website the tutorial could

potentially serve as a hard static scaffold as introduced by (Saye and Brush 2002). The

learner would have the choice as to whether it would fade, and once they no longer need

to view the web-based tutorial, the responsibility for the task rests with them.

The collaboration and participation of my colleagues, critical friend and validation

group were instrumental over both cycles. Their views and opinions were invaluable, as

without them I might not have been aware of errors and poor practice on my own part. I

had begun cycle one by investigating the needs and difficulties experienced by learners.

My empathy with online learners, and my desire to educate was in essence the starting

point of the research process. However, on occasion when acting in cycle one; I veered

away from this focus. The research participants’ feedback helped me to reconsider

problems that other learners might experience if watching the web-based tutorial. By

taking on board the suggestions made in cycle one I believe that I made the web-based

tutorial suitable for a wider range of learner needs and zones of proximal development.

Through my research, I believe that I am justified in claiming that I am learning to

scaffold a synchronous online professional development course. My desire to educate

and my empathy with learners were the reasons that I first chose to look for ways to

scaffold and support learners. By investigating learning problems in an effort to better

understand the learners’ needs, I believe that I was guided by my value of empathy. I

believe that I have lived my value of scaffolding through my own learning and research

of the scaffolding literature, and by applying my learning in the design and

implementation of the web-based tutorial.

4.6 Rigour and Validity The triangulation of data collection methods and the inclusion of two action cycles

established rigour in the research. To test the validity and authenticity of the research, I

presented my implementation, the data I collected, and the evidence I had generated, to

  75

my peer group at a validation meeting held in DCU on 15 June 2011. I outlined how I

believed I was scaffolding learners through my own learning and by creating a web-

based tutorial. I also met with my dissertation supervisor on a number of occasions to

discuss my research and submit drafts of my dissertation. I met with my critical friend,

Maeve on two occasions. She viewed both versions of the web-based tutorial and

offered feedback each time. I also asked her to review the implementation chapter using

the four criteria adapted by Farren (2006, p.102) from Habermas’ framework of social

validity. In her opinion, my account of my learning was comprehensive my value of

scaffolding was revealed in my research (Appendix N).

Is the account of my learning comprehensible?

Yes. I can understand your learning by the theories quoted and witnessing how

you have put these theories into practice - you created the tutorial in accordance

with the stated values of scaffolding and holding empathy with the learner.

Are my educational values clearly revealed and justified?

Very much so ………..It is equally on the value of scaffolding in tutoring – making

it possible for a learner to move from ‘their actual and present zone of

development to their proximal zone of development’ and then, as you say, when

they no longer experience the need for this scaffold, they themselves simply ‘let it

fade’.

I cannot to claim that I influenced the learning of others, as I was unable to involve real

users in the evaluation of the web-based tutorial. However, I hope to place the web-

based tutorial on the Institute’s website soon. I attended a validation meeting with my

colleagues, Úna (Director) and Angela (Senior Manager), on Monday 27 June 2011

(AV Appendix O). In this meeting, I asked for their opinions on the revised web-based

tutorial and they were both very happy with it (start to 1 minute 10 seconds). Úna

thought that the tutorial was ‘very clear and easy to use’. Both were also very happy to

place it on the Institute’s website (one minute 10 second to 2 minutes 30 seconds).

  76

Figure 4.5 Validation Meeting with Colleagues

4.7 Conclusion Over the course of two action cycles, I created and evaluated a web-based tutorial,

designed to act as a support and to scaffold learners experiencing difficulties joining and

participating in a live online seminar. The findings of my research suggest that I have

created an effective learning tool that displayed and incorporated some of the key

scaffolding characteristics. Through the creation and evaluation of the web-based

tutorial, I have been able to make my claim to knowledge; I am learning to scaffold a

synchronous online professional development course. In the final chapter of this

dissertation I explain the significance of my research.

  77

5 Chapter 4 – Conclusion

5.1 Introduction In this final chapter I will set forth my claim to knowledge and explain the significance

of my research. In my dissertation I asked the question ‘How am I learning to scaffold a

synchronous online professional development course?’ I answered this question through

researching the key conceptual themes of this study and applying what I had learnt in

the design and creation of a web-based tutorial, designed to assist learners, in accessing

and participating in synchronous online professional development courses. In my design

I considered web-based tutorial design and usability guidelines and the key

characteristics of scaffolding that I identified from the literature. By carrying out this

research I intended to improve my own practice and to positively affect the learning of

others through my own learning. I believe that the research I carried out could have a

positive impact on my organisation. My research and professional development has

prompted me to look at other ways in which to improve my practice as a professional

development co-ordinator and in my role facilitating and co-ordinating e-learning

professional development courses. I have included these as suggestions for further

research.

5.2 My Claim to Knowledge In Chapter three, I detailed the implementation of my research. Through two action

cycles I generated evidence of how I was learning to scaffold a synchronous online

professional development course. While my research had originally be guided by value

of empathy and my desire to teach, my value of scaffolding emerged and developed

over two action cycles, as I implemented my research. My research of scaffolding has

shown that static supports such as the web-based tutorial I created may not technically

fulfil the criteria of the scaffolding metaphor originally devised by Wood, Bruner and

Ross (1976). While the literature is at odds as to whether many software supports

should be described as scaffolds, it does recommend guidelines for creating software

scaffolds. Where possible I applied these scaffolding characteristics to the design of the

web-based tutorial. There was evidence of my own learning in my application of the

knowledge I had learned, through my research of scaffolding literature, in the design

  78

and creation of the web-based tutorial. While I was unable to evaluate the tutorial using

real learners, findings of the study suggest that I have created a clear tutorial that was

easy to understand. Participants in cycle two also claimed to find the tutorial to be an

effective and efficient way in which to learn about participating in live online seminars.

5.3 Impact on my Personal Development McNiff (2010) highlights the importance of making the implicit explicit in the action

research process. I believe that through the process of reflecting on what I was not

doing in my practice and through discussions at validation meetings, I developed my

self-awareness and self-knowledge along with recognition of my educational values.

While I had not realised it at the time, the focus of my research was underpinned by my

value of having empathy with learners and my desire to educate. Recognition of this in

validation meetings, led me to research scaffolding to discover ways in which to assist

learners experiencing difficulties. It was from this starting point that my value of

scaffolding emerged.

My experience collaborating with others, my colleagues, research participants, critical

friend, DCU classmates and dissertation supervisor was of great significance to both my

personal and professional development. It taught me that so much more could be

achieved through open participation with others.

5.4 Impact on my Professional Development The theory that I have learned through this process has had a positive impact my

professional development. As my role has broadened from professional development

co-ordination to the facilitation and co-ordination of e-learning services, having the

opportunity to research the themes central to my research was very appropriate to my

role and personally rewarding. Online professional development is increasing in

popularity and utilisation. My reading of the literature has shown that it is an effective

means of teaching professionals. However, as explained in Chapter two, care must be

shown to those that might not have prior knowledge, experience or skills in the area of

e-learning or IT. My research has shown me that I must be continually conscious of the

needs of online learners.

  79

My research into eAuthoring software and web-based tutorial design guidelines was of

particular benefit to me professionally. I now believe that I have the skills to create

effective and well-designed e-learning artefacts. However, I remain open to new

knowledge and practices.

From a professional perspective my research has enabled me to take the initiative and

broaden my role facilitating and coordinating synchronous online professional

development courses. I have taken responsibility for supporting learners participating in

these courses.

5.5 Potential Significance for my Organisation In my opinion, offering the web-based tutorial to members could enhance the supportive

and educational role of the Institute. In a validation meeting on 27 June 2011 my

colleagues agreed that the web-based tutorial should be made available to members on

the Institute’s website to support their online synchronous professional development.

I believe that by applying my learning in my practice, I can also benefit the Institute.

The Institute is very keen to expand its e-learning services across the professional

development and education service lines. I hope to assist them, by applying what I have

learned about creating e-learning tutorials, synchronous web conferencing and also

through my learning of how to scaffold synchronous professional development courses.

In my opinion, the action research methodology I used was very suitable in the context

of my organisation. The Institute is a forward-looking organisation and is constantly

looking for new ways to improve and change with the times. The transformative

potential of action research means that it is an appropriate method to generate change

and improvement from within the organisation.

My action research also generated a sense of participation and collaboration between

my colleagues and myself. Some were actively involved in initial data analysis and

others in the evaluation stages of my research. In believe that this type of idea sharing

and collaboration could be very positive for the Institute and its staff.

  80

5.6 Suggestions for Future Research My research has opened my eyes to the range of learning opportunities offered by

synchronous web conferencing. Currently the Irish Tax Institute offers limited

participation and interaction in live online seminars. My suggestion for future research

would be to include more collaborative, participatory elements into the existing live

online seminar format. The literature informed me that learners, especially those

studying at a distance, could benefit from increased participation, interaction and

collaboration in web conferences (Falloon 2011; Chen, Chen and Tsai 2009; Carbonaro

et al 2008; Schullo et al 2007; Pan and Sullivan 2005). I intend to look for ways to

broaden the application of web conferencing in professional development courses.

  81

References Bell, J. 2005. Doing your Research Project. 4th ed. New York: Open University Press.

 

Bruner, J. 1985. Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective IN: Wertsch, J.V.

Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press. pp. 21-33.

Carbonaro, M. et al. 2008. Integration of e-learning technologies in an interprofessional

health science course. Medical Teacher [Online], 30(1), pp. 25-33. Available from:

Professional Development [Accessed 19 March 2011].

Captivate - Adobe 2011. Adobe Captivate [Online]. Available from:

http://www.adobe.com/products/captivate.html. [Accessed 11 June 2011].

Chartered Accountants Ireland 2011. Online Courses [Online]. Available from:

http://www.charteredaccountants.ie/CPD/Courses--Events/cpdonline/. [Accessed 12

January 2011].

Chen, Y., Chen, N. and Tsai, C. 2009. The use of online synchronous discussion for

web-based professional development for teachers. Computers & Education, 53(3), pp.

1155-1166.

Coffey, J.W. 2010. Web conferencing software in university-level, e-Learning-based,

technical courses. J. Educational Technology Systems, 38(3) pp. 367-381.

Colvin Clarke, R. 2005. Harnessing the Virtual Classroom. T+D, 59(11), pp. 40-43.

Coghan, D. and Brannick, T. 2005. Doing Action Research in your own Organization.

2nd ed. London: SAGE.

CPA – The Institute of Certified Public Accounts in Ireland 2011. CPA Webinars

[Online]. Available from:

  82

http://www.cpaireland.ie/displaycontent.aspx?node=357&groupID=357&parentID=131

[Accessed 11 April 2011].

Docherty, A. and Sandhu, H. 2006. Student-perceived barriers and facilitators to e-

learning in continuing professional development in primary care. Education for Primary

Care, 17(4), pp.343-353.

Doering, A. and Velesianos, G. 2007. Multi-scaffolding environment: An analysis of

scaffolding and its impact on cognitive load and problem-solving ability. Journal of

educational Computing Research, 37(2), pp. 107-129.

Donavant, B.W. 2009. The New, Modern Practice of Adult Education: Online

Instruction in a Continuing Professional Education Setting. Adult Education Quarterly

[Online], 59(3) p.227-245. Available from: Sage Premier [Accessed 20 December

2010].

Falloon, G. 2011. Making the Connection: Moore’s Theory of Transactional Distance

and Its Relevance to the Use of a Virtual Classroom in Postgraduate Online Teacher

Education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), pp. 187-209.

Farren, M. 2006 [Online]. How am I creating a pedagogy of the unique through a web

of betweenness (Doctoral dissertation, University of Bath, 2006). Available from:

http://www.actionresearch.net/farren.shtml [Accessed 24 April 2011].

Farren, M and Ryan, M. 2004 [Online]. Action research: a new scholarship of

educational enquiry. In: Action Research, January 2004, NUI Galway. Available from:

http://doras.dcu.ie/687/1/Microsoft_PowerPoint_-_galwayjan2004.pdf. [Accessed: 21

December 2009].

Flick, U. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. London: SAGE.

Gill, A. 2007. Education and development. E-learning and professional development –

never too old to learn. British Journal of Nursing, 16(17) pp. 1084-1088.

  83

Grix, J. 2004. The Foundations of Research. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire;

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Grogan, M. and Simmons, J. 2007. Taking a critical stance in research IN: Briggs,

A.R.J. and Coleman. M. 2nd Ed. Research Methods in Educational Leadership and

Management. London: Sage. pp. 37-51.

Hennessy, T. 2007. How can I improve my practice?: How can I, as an ICT co-

ordinator, encourage and support collaboration in my work place through the use of

Moodle? MSc Dissertation. Dublin City University.

Househ, M.S. et al. 2011. The use of conferencing technologies to support drug policy

group knowledge exchange processes: An action case approach. International Journal

of Medical Informatics, 80(4), pp. 251-261.

Hrastinski, S. 2008. Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning: A study of

asynchronous and synchronous e-learning methods discovered that each supports

different purposes. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(4), pp. 51-55.

Huang, C. 2005. Designing high-quality interactive multimedia learning modules.

Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 29(2)(3), pp. 223-233.

Irish Tax Institute 2011. Online Seminars [Online]. Available from:

http://www.taxireland.ie/events/34887.aspx. [Accessed 11 April 2011].

Irish Tax Institute 2011. About Us [Online]. Available from:

http://www.taxireland.ie/about/about.aspx.  [Accessed 18 June 2011].

Kim, M.C. and Hannafin, M.J. 2011. Scaffolding problem solving in technology-

enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice.

Computers & Education, 56(2), pp. 403–417.

Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning : experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J : Prentice-Hall.

  84

Kozaris, I.A. 2010. Platforms for e-Learning. Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry,

397 (3), pp. 893-898.

Liaw, S. 2008. Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and

effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers &

Education, 51(2), pp.864-873.

Little, B. 2009. The Changing Face of CPD. Training Journal, Jun2009, pp. 51-54.

Macdonald, J. 2008. Blended learning and online tutoring (2nd ed.). Hampshire, UK:

Gower.

MacGregor, G. and Turner, J. 2009. Revisiting e-learning effectiveness: proposing a

conceptual model. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 6(3), pp. 156-172.

Mason, R. 2000. From distance education to online education. Internet and Higher

education, 3(1-2), pp. 63-74.

McNiff, J. 2010. Action Research for Professional Development. Dorset: September

Books.

McNiff, J. 1988. Action Research Principles and Practice. London: Routledge.

McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead, J. 1996. You and your Action Research Project.

London: Routledge.

McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. 2002. Action Research Principles and Practice, 2nd ed.

London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Meegan, J. 2009. Continuing professional development: an investigation into the CPD

activities of ICAI members in Ireland. MBS Dissertation. Dublin City University.

Morrisson, M. 2007. What do we mean by educational research? IN: Briggs, A.R.J. and

  85

Coleman. M. 2nd Ed. Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management.

London: SAGE. pp. 13-36.

Nielsen, J. 1993. Usability Engineering. Boston: AP Professional.

Omnipro 2011. Online CPD [Online]. Available from:

http://www.omnipro.ie/education_training/online_cpd.php. [Accessed 28 June 2011].

Pan, C and Sullivan, M. 2005. Promoting synchronous interaction in an eLearning

environment. THE Journal, [Online]. Available from:

http://thejournal.com/articles/2005/09/01/promoting-synchronous-interaction-in-an--

elearning-environment.aspx. [Accessed: 25 March 2011].

Pea, R.D. 2004. The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related

theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 13(3), pp. 423-451.

Pillay, H., Irving, K. and Tones, M. 2007. Validation of the diagnostic tool for assessing

tertiary students’ readiness for online learning. Higher Education Research &

development, 26(2) pp. 217-234.

Pol, J., Volman. M. and Beishuizen, J. 2010. Scaffolding in Teacher-Student

Interaction: A Decade of Research. Educational Psychological Review, 22(3), pp. 271-

296.

Pratt, N. 2008. Multi-point e-conferencing with initial teacher training students in

England: Pitfalls and Potential. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (6), pp. 1476-

1487.

Puntabekar, S. and Hübscher, R. 2005. Tools for scaffolding students in a complex

learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational

Psychologist, 40(1), pp. 1-12.

  86

Rosenberg, M.J. 2001. e-Learning Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital

Age. New York: McGraw Hill.

Saye, J.W. and Brush, T. Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social sciences

in multi-media supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 50(3), pp. 77-96.

Schullo, S. 2007. Selecting a Virtual Classroom System: Elluminate Live vs.

Macromedia Breeze. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, [Online]3(4),

pp. 331-345. Available from: http://jolt.merlot.org/documents/hilbelink.pdf. [Accessed

25 March 2011].

Shapiro, A.M. 2008. Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding. Education Technology

Research and Development, 56, pp 29-44.

Sharma, P. and Hannafin, M. J. 2007. Scaffolding in Technology-Enhanced Learning

Environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), pp. 27-46.

Sherin, B., Reiser, B.J. and Edelson, D. 2004. Scaffolding Analysis: Extending the

Scaffolding Metaphor to Learning Artifacts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

13(3), pp. 387-421.

Shih  et  al.  2010.  The Development and Implementation of Scaffolding-Based Self-

Regulated Learning System for e/m-Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 13

(1), pp. 80-93.

Silverback 2011. Silverback – guerilla usability testing [Online]. Available from:

http://silverbackapp.com/. [Accessed: 11 June 2011].

Stone, C.A. 1998a. The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning

disabilities. Journal of Learning Sciences, 31(4), pp. 344-364.

Stone, C.A. 1998b. Should we salvage the scaffolding metaphor? Journal of Learning

Sciences, 31(4), pp. 409-413.

  87

Suo, S. and K, J. 2010. Design and development of information literacy tutorials. The

Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(4), pp. 320-328.

Sutton, A., Booth, A., Ayiku, L., & O’Rourke, A. 2005. e-FOLIO: using e-learning to

learn about e-learning. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 22(s2), pp. 84-88.

Thatcher, A. 2006. Building and maintaining an online academic conference series.

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(12), pp. 1081-1088.

Tsai, A. 2011. A Hybrid E-Learning Model Incorporating Some Of The Principal

Learning Theories. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 39(2), pp.

145-152.

Tuckman,  B.W.  2007.  The effect of motivational scaffolding on procrastinators’

distance learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 49(2), pp. 414–422.

Tyler-Smith, K. 2006. Early Attrition among First Time eLearners: A Review of

Factors that Contribute to Drop-out, Withdrawal and Non-completion Rates of Adult

Learners undertaking eLearning Programmes. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning

and Teaching [Online], 2(2). Available from:

http://jolt.merlot.org/documents/Vol2_No2_TylerSmith_000.pdf [Accessed 13 January

2011].

Vaughan, T. 2008. Multimedia: making it work. 7th ed. London: McGraw-Hill.

Yvgotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yang, S. C. and Liu, S. F. 2004. Case study of online workshop for the professional

development of teachers. Computers in Human Behaviour [Online], 20(6), pp. 733-761.

Available from: ScienceDirect [Accessed 19 March 2011].

Yang, Z. and Liu, Q. 2007. Research and development of web-based virtual online

classroom. Computers & Education, 48(2), pp 171-184.

  88

Yelinek, K. et al. 2008. Captivate MenuBuilder: Creating an Online Tutorial for

Teaching Software. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues

and Idea [Online], 82(2), pp. 101-106. Available from: Informaworld [Accessed 26

March 2011].

Wall, J. and Ahmed, V. 2008. Lessons learned from a case study in deploying blended

learning continuing professional development. Engineering, Construction and

Architectural Management [Online], 15(2), p.185-202. Available from: Emerald

Management 175. [Accessed 9 January 2011].

Whitehead, J. and McNiff, J. 2006. Action Research/Living Theory. London; Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind,

“How do I improve my practice?”. Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 41-52.

Wood, D, Bruner, J.S. and Ross, G. 1976. The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Discipline, 17(2), pp. 89-100.

Zhang, D. 2005. Interactive Mulitmedia based eLearning: A Study of Effectiveness.

[Online]. Available from: Interactive Mulitmedia based eLearning: A Study of

Effectiveness. The American Journal of Distance Education. 9(3), pp. 149-162.

Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R.O. and Nunamaker Jr, J.F. 2006. Instructional video in

e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning.

Information & Management, 43(1), pp.15-27

 A  

Appendices Appendix A – About the Irish Tax Institute

Irish Tax Institute

The Irish Tax Institute is the leading representative and educational body for Ireland’s

Registered Tax Consultants and is the only professional body exclusively dedicated to

tax. Our members provide tax expertise to thousands of businesses, multinationals and

individuals in Ireland and internationally. In addition many hold senior roles within

professional service firms, global companies, Government, Revenue and state bodies.

The Institute is the leading provider of tax qualifications in Ireland, educating the finest

minds in tax and business for over thirty years. Our AITI Registered Tax Consultant

qualification is the gold standard in tax education and is renowned for its professional

rigour and depth. The Institute also continues to promote the highest standards

throughout the careers of Registered Tax Consultants through our expert-led

professional development programme.

A respected body on tax policy and administration, the Institute engages at the most

senior levels across Government, business and state organisations.

Representing the views and expertise of our members, we play an important role in the

fiscal and tax administrative discussions and decisions in Ireland and in the EU.

Irish Tax Institute

South Block

Longboat Quay

Grand Canal Harbour

Dublin 2

Tel.: +353 1 663 1700

E-mail: info@taxinstitute.ie

Web: www.taxinstitute.ie  

 B  

Appendix B – Extracts from MNA Survey 2011 (Full survey is confidential but available on request)

 B  

 C  

Appendix C – Extracts from MNA Survey 2010 (Full survey is confidential but available on request)

 D  

Appendix D – Questionnaire Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

1. I am a novice

computer user

2. I am an expert

computer user

3. I have previously

participated in a live

online seminar

4. The audio quality

of the web-based

tutorial was good

5. The speed of the

audio was at an

appropriate level of

instruction

6. The screen

recording video

quality of the web-

based tutorial was

good

7. The speed of the

screen recording

video was at an

appropriate level of

instruction

8. The audio and

screen recording

video of the web-

based tutorial were

well synchronised

9. The use of text

captions was good

 D  

10. The audio and

text captions of the

web-based tutorial

were well

synchronised

11. The colour

schemes used in the

web-based tutorial

were consistent

12. The screen size of

the web-based

tutorial was ideal for

viewing

13. Menu control of

the web-based

tutorial was

convenient

14. The table of

contents was

convenient

15. The content was

easy to understand

16. The use of

interactive

simulations was

beneficial

17. Once the

interactions were

completed the next

sections displayed

quickly

18. The objectives of

the web-based

tutorial were clear

 D  

19. The web-based

tutorial was effective

in helping me to

understand how to

participate in a live

online seminar

20. The web-based

tutorial was an

efficient way to learn

how to participate in

a live online seminar

21. I would have to

watch the web-based

tutorial more than

once before

participating in a live

online seminar

22. Watching the

web-based tutorial

would reduce the

need to contact the

live online seminar

provider with

technical questions

22. Can you recommend any improvements to the web-based tutorial?

23. Have you any other comments about the web-based tutorial?

 E  

Appendix E - Plain Language Statement

 E  

 F  

Appendix F - Informed Consent Forms

 G  

Appendix G - Finance Bill 2011 Seminar

 G  

 H  

Appendix H - Revenue Audits and Revenue Powers Seminar

2010

 I  

Appendix I - Reflective Journals Sunday 5 December 2010

Last edited: Sunday, 5 December 2010, 06:50 PM

Over the past couple of days I have been re-evaluating my research project and I

suppose I've done a complete 180 really.

First of all I mentioned my idea to two colleagues in work. They weren't in anyway

negative about the idea but had reservations about involving members directly. My

manager recommended that I draft a proposal to give to my director but their reaction

planted some seeds of doubt.

I also began reading up on Case Studies methodology and the concerns about the

validity of the methodology worried me. My other main concern was selection of

participants, (Peter sort of echoed a similar issue in his talk on Wednesday night). I

would be limited in the number of participants I could use to gather evidence in my

study and as I would be familiar with most people who order online seminars at this

stage would be really tempting and easiest to contact people that I already have a

relationship with but would that lead to bias?

Anyway, I began reading more about Action Research in Jean McNiff's publication and

began to think about how I could use action research in my own practice.

I think that although I understood the principles of action research, I didn't really

understand as I didn't think that I could do it myself. That probably sounds a bit

ridiculous since all along we have been told that action research is not just for

academics and that any practitioner can conduct action research. However I think my

problems understanding and believing that I could engage in some action research was

really because I did not recognise and respect my practice and my role as a practitioner.

It seemed to be more the remit of those who actually teach - a really worthy profession.

Reading Jean McNiff's book though has made me realise that action research is about

improving your practice and justifying yourself as a professional. That led me to

conclude that the way for me to recognise and respect my practice is to improve it.

My ideas are still a bit wishy washy here though.

 I  

I began to think about how I can improve e-learning in my workplace. As I have

mentioned in previous journals, a lot of the time in work for me involves reaction to

external events rather than action and reflection. A constant stream of deadlines. We

haven't been quite as busy this last few weeks so it has given me the opportunity to

catch up and to think about our services. Our e-learning online seminars have been in

place for over a year now but I think the system by which users access the online

seminars and in particular, how they are instructed to access the online seminars isn't

great. There are short instructions on the website but we really rely on emailing people

individually with lengthy access details after they have purchased an online seminar.

We will be introducing a new website in the new year and I have drafted more detailed

instructions for an online seminar Q&A session. It had been mentioned ages ago about

the possibility of creating an online demonstration about online seminars. I was thinking

of creating two detailed instructive online demonstrations using screen recording

software. The first would explain exactly how one accesses a live online seminar and

how they can interact with the speaker. the second would show people how they can

access an on-demand online seminar. It is quite a small project. Alternatively I could

create one detailed demonstration that incorporates all parts but also gives people the

option to jump to the section that interests them. I think that creating something like this

would really improve the service and being a multimedia e-learning tool itself, it would

from the outset familiarise people with learning online. I am also conscious that we

have more or less moved classroom content directly online without giving much

thought to a sustainable online learning environment. There are also other areas that I

could concentrate on: sourcing a better technology through which to stream live events.

The aim would be to improve the quality of the online seminar service. We are currently

using webex but it has it's limitations.

Another option would be to introduce an assessment system that must be completed

after attending an on-demand online seminar. We currently don't have anything like this

in place.

However I think the most doable at the moment would be the creation of an online

demonstration. I will first get some feedback from within the workplace to see if this is

a good idea. I will also look for more ways to improve the service by looking back at

feedback forms that were completed by those who attended online events over the last

couple of months.

 I  

Saturday 11 December

How do I encourage participation and improve the accessibility and usability of online

seminars provided for tax professionals engaging in continuing professional

development through the creation of an instructional "how-to" interactive screen

recording?' At the moment I am getting increasingly frustrated trying to finalise my

research statement. I feel like I'm going around and around in circles. I am fairly clear

on what I want to do but I cannot seem to be able to concisely convey it. It may be that I

have not yet read enough to be able to clearly articulate my question. As you can see

from the question above, it is too wordy and I believe is not written in plain language

that does not link to the central themes my research.

I am going to try to make things clearer in my own head by using Jean McNiff's steps

for "How do I do Action Research?'

What is my concern? I am concerned that the implementation of e-learning in my

organisation has mainly involved directly placing classroom content online through use

of online seminars. Although online seminars are a means of engaging in CPD which

can be argued to be self-directed learning in some respects, I do not believe that the

learners have been adequately assisted and facilitated.

Why am I concerned? I do not believe that we are providing the best service we can. I

do not think that learners are getting the most from their online learning

experiences. How can I show the situation as it is and as it develops as I take action?

Feedback from learners. Screenshots of current info available on our website about

online seminars. How people are instructed to access online seminars and get the most

from their learning experience. What can I do? I hope to begin to rectify this by

creating an interactive screen recording presentation (that may or may not include

video) that would tell learners what online seminars are and instruct them on how to

purchase and then obtain access to online seminars and how to get the most from the

experience. For e.g in live online seminars, how to use the chat facility, download

course materials etc etc. To make the e-learning environment it more easily accessible

and to improve usability by giving instruction on how to best utilise the online learning

environment in different types of media.

 I  

I would hope to draw on constructivist learning, the instructional video would be

interactive in that learners could refer to different 'chapters' to search for answers and

instruction on the area of their choice. For example, someone might know how to buy

an online seminar but doesn't know how to use the chat facility so they can skip ahead

to that part. I am worried that my concern or rather my way of addressing my concern

is not good enough. Is the idea too simple? However as action research is a cyclical

progress I think that my worries in this regard could be dealt with further along in the

process. Ok, after going through all of that, I can identify that my concern is how do I

adequately facilitate e-learning for adult learners (tax professionals) engaging in online

continuing professional development so here's another stab at a research question: How

can I better facilitate learning for tax professionals attending continuing professional

development online seminars? How can I better facilitate learning for tax professionals

attending continuing professional development online seminars by creating an

instructional interactive multimedia presentation? I am unsure whether I should

mention the the interactive presentation specifically in the title or does this tie me down

too much?

Sunday 8 May 2011

My choice of research question is intrinsically linked to my educational values and my

decision to begin to live by them.

It has taken a lot of thought and reflection to identify my educational values. At times I

have felt as if maybe I don’t have any. I believe that is because I have not been living

them in my day-to-day work as a professional development co-ordinator. In fact day-to-

day pressures and stresses have at times buried them.

From examining my thoughts, feelings and opinions and reflecting on my views of

education, which I have to some extent always had, I was able to re-identify my

educational values.

I believe that education can set you free. Education can provide the right tools,

knowledge and supports to progress, learn for yourself and achieve things you never

before thought you could.

 I  

I believe that educators should provide supports or scaffolds for learners to assist them

to learn basic skills and solve initial problems so that they can progress to the next step

and begin to learn for himself or herself in a self-directed capacity.

No learner should feel incompetent, inadequate or unable to learn. Adequate support

should be given to raise learners to the stage where the have an equal chance to progress

as independent confident learners in their own right. This also involves my views on

inclusivity. I believe that anyone can learn. Age, social standing, gender and previous

misconceptions should not inhibit learning or giving someone the opportunity to learn.

Finally from a personal perspective, I believe that educators should give their very best.

Although circumstances can make this difficult at times, educators have to strive to

excel within their own capabilities.

Whitehead recommends that you look at what you are not doing to realise your

educational values. By examining my role in the workplace I have been able to identify

the areas in which I feel I am not living up to my values. In this sense I believe that I am

a living contradiction but would like to begin to remedy this.

On reflection I realised that my position within the organisation, a professional

development co-ordinator, made me question my right to ascribe to any educational

values. I am technically not an educator in my workplace. I organise seminars,

conferences and workshops but my role is purely in an administrative and

organisational capacity and I am not directly involved in educating the course

participants. However, my role has expanded in that I am now responsible for web

conferencing live classroom events and administering the professional development e-

learning initiatives.

Web conferencing is offered as a cost-effective, convenience alternative to attending

classroom events. From examining the web conferencing facility offered to participants,

I identified a number of areas that I was not happy about and which I felt were not true

to my values.

 I  

For the most part participants choose to attend live online events because they are

cheaper and it means they will not have to travel and spend time out of the office.

Results from a member survey analysis supported this view. It was evident from

feedback received from online participants and the numbers of support calls received

from participants attempting to access live online events that some who choose to attend

online were not very technically skilled and had little or no experience using web

conferencing technologies.

Many had difficulties initially joining the meeting. Others could join but had difficulties

with sound, while others who successfully joined could not use the chat facility to

interact and pose questions for the presenter.

This led to participants feeling frustrated after having a negative experience. It is my

fear that negative experiences such as these, caused by lack of experience, technical

incompetence and lack of sufficient initial supports and training will negatively impact

the effectiveness of the web conferencing facility as a learning tool. It may also result in

learners not participating online again. Their confidence may well have taken a knock

and they may feel that this is something they cannot do. This would be a terrible shame

as my literature review shows, web conferencing used correctly can be a powerful and

effective learning tool.

I propose that if the correct scaffolds are put in place participants can reach a level

where they can take full advantage of the web conferencing software. They will be

given the skills to enable them to progress and become empowered, encouraging their

self-directed online learning initiatives.

Participants currently receive an email instructing them on how to join a live online

seminar or conference. It is also informs them to use the chat facility to pose any

questions they might have for the presenter. The email includes a link to a WebEx test

to ensure they have the necessary system requirements to join a WebEx meeting. It also

includes details of a support number to contact if they experience any difficulties.

However these emails do not seem to give sufficient direction as continued calls to the

support number and post-event survey feedback indicate.

 I  

To remedy this I propose to create an online tutorial, which will demonstrate how a

participant joins a live online event, how they test their audio, navigate within the

WebEx page and how to use the chat facility to interact. My aim is that through learning

to create an effective tutorial and making it available for participants I can teach them

the base skills necessary to get the most from their online experience. Through making

this small change and attempting to improve the current situation I aspire to begin to

live by my educational values.

Saturday 14 May 2011

I’ve been familiarising myself with Captivate again today to learn the basic functions to

create my WebEx (ITI live online seminar tutorial). The tutorial will consist of a series

of slides and screen recordings with audio and simulations. I intend to use the tutorial as

a scaffold to assist learners participating in WebEx online seminars. It is my hope that

demonstration and simulation will help learners to become familiar and confident using

WebEx software so that they can then concentrate on the content being delivered.

This journey learning how to use Captivate has put me in the position of the learners I

am trying to help. It illustrated how online screen recording tutorials can assist learners

to learn about new software and how to use.

I would consider myself to be quite proficient using software and would generally find

it easy to quickly pick up the new skills necessary to successfully navigate and operate

unfamiliar software. I would generally explore the software myself testing out the

different functions until I figure out how to use it. However, I had never used Captivate

before and as I mentioned in a previous journal, I found it quite difficult to use and

impossible to intuitively know what functions to use or buttons to press to get it to do

what I wanted. I had in fact hit a brick wall that I could not get over without some

outside assistance.

I began by searching for adobe captivate tutorials. The first few I accessed were screen

recordings with simulations with no audio. At fist I found these hard to follow. I then

search for more tutorials and found an adobe channel on YouTube. This channel

contained screen recordings with simulations, captions and audio.

 I  

Watching these tutorials really helped me to understand how to use Captivate and

straight away afterwards I could successfully add a new slide, text caption, text insert

box and click box. They raised my understanding and knowledge to a much higher level

that I would not have been able to achieve otherwise (Or if I did it would have taken a

much longer time using trial an error approach). I still have some way to go to

competently create my tutorial but I believe that I am now on the right track and have a

basic understanding of how Captivate works.

I also think that my own learning process has helped me to appreciate how effective an

online tutorial can be to raise your learning to the next level.

I personally get very frustrated when I can’t understand something or learn something

new. So I love that feeling of getting of sudden understanding of a topic when someone

or something helps you to learn and understand in way that you could never possibly

achieve yourself. It is like a sitting in dark room and someone turns on the light. I would

like to be the cause of someone else achieving that understanding of a topic.

Monday 6 June 2011

My reflections on cycle one. Although I designed the tutorial with as a scaffold that

could be suitable for a range of learner ability, my own expert knowledge of the online

seminar system led me to make assumptions in designing the tutorial and negate my

value of scaffolding learners.

I decided to use animated text on the “what will this seminar cover” screen as I thought

it would be a good design feature. However I did not consider that learners who were

completely unfamiliar with live online seminars and who were drawn to the written

word would appreciate it if the text remained on the screen for longer. I also ignored

the design guideline that states that the objectives of the tutorial should be plainly

outlined at the beginning of the course. While the narration dealt with the guidelines, I

did not consider those who prefer the written word.

I discussed using a table of contents with my CF after she had watched the online

tutorial. At the time I argued that the tutorial is too short to merit the use of a table of

contents. I also put forward this view to my supervisor and critical classmate at a

supervisor meeting.

 I  

However on reflection, I read back over the literature where it specified that giving

learners the opportunity to navigate the tutorial as they require increases learner

satisfaction. It became apparent that I had not catered for the more experienced learner

who wanted to easily navigate to the section that interested them.

I also did not consider that learners would not know that the name they entered into the

Join Meeting page would be displayed on a participants’ list when they entered the live

online seminar or that they might experience some confusion as to which email address

to enter. I also did not realise that some of the captions designed to assist learners with

the interactions might actually confuse them.

I was negating my values as I did not consider that some learners might experience

confusion, frustration and feelings of inadequacy watching the actual tutorial because I

had neglected to give them enough time to read the topics to be covered, by not making

the interactions as clear as they can be and by not giving them the tools to efficiently

navigate the tutorial.

Saturday 11 June 2011

I have been re-reading the first drafts of my methodology & literature review chapters.

In my literature review chapter particularly I noticed sections that I was not happy with.

The structure of many sections was poor. I had been trying to get a point across but got

bogged down with all the literature and did not succinctly articulate the original point I

had originally planned to make. Feedback from my supervisor really helped me to

realise this. She advised that I shorten some sections and I realised that sentences that I

had thought were important were actually needless.

I really value having the opportunity to critically review what I have written. In order

that I do not make the same type of mistakes again I will have to give myself enough

time to go back over what I have written in future. That was I hope to ensure that I have

not overdone it with quotes and sections from the literature. I’ve realised that too many

inclusions confuse the point I’m trying to make. It is important to take a step back and

critically assess whether I am being clear in my writing. It is a skill that I will have to

work on however.    

 I  

Monday 13 June 2011

Reflection on Cycle two of my implementation

To establish rigour in my study I decided to ask a new set of participants to test the

improved tutorial and complete a questionnaire to evaluate usability and their perceived

learning. I thought it important to test both those with a high, medium and low level of

IT ability. Both the usability and perceived learning rated very high across the board.

However, how does that effect whether or not the tool will serve as an effective

software scaffold and how do I determine that it does?

As became apparent through reading the literature there are a number of parallels

between designing an effective web-based tutorial and designing an effective software

scaffold. I intend to analyse the data from the questionnaire and link it back to the

usability and other design features and the primary objectives of the tutorial. Through

doing this I hope to establish whether the tutorial follows the design guidelines of an

effective software scaffold.

With this done though, I will have to considere the fact that the scaffold will be static.

While I attempted to cater for a range of learner ability through the use of the table of

contents there will be no ongoing diagnosis or fading, characteristics that are said to be

key in discerning a scaffold from a support. There is some support in the literature for

the use of static scaffolds (Doering & Veletsianos 2007) but this is a contentious

viewpoint. Puntambekar and Hübscher (2005) recommend that you account for the lack

of fading in online environments by introducing a number of scaffolds or creating a

multi-scaffolded environment from which scaffolds can be removed when no longer

needed. They also recommend the inclusion of multiple scaffolds to suit the varying

needs and developmental levels of the students. This web-based tutorial is the first such

support or scaffold to be introduced to learners in the Institute. We do not yet have a

learning management system in the Institute although it will likely be introduced for

AITI & TMITI students soon and if so members may also be given access. That may be

the opportunity to introduce a multi-scaffolded environment.

Another way to look at it may be to view the web-based tutorial as a support with a

number of scaffolding features designed to help different learners.

 I  

For instance use of multi-media to represent information in a number of ways could be

considered scaffolding for different types of learners. The captions highlight features

mentioned in the narration but some viewers may need to have them pointed out.

Thinking about this more the tutorial itself is probably too small with too little content

to contain scaffolding features so it would probably be best placed as one scaffold

among many in a multi-scaffolded environment.

The issue of self-directed learning also has to be considered. Professional development

is not prescribed for professionals. Courses are run and books are published but the

onus is on the professional to choose what courses to attend, what publications to read

and when to do it. The level of involvement with CPD learners is not enough to give

and take away learning supports. The structure is just not there. In Doering and

Veletsian’s (2007) study the scaffold they used were static and it was up to the student’s

themselves whether on not to use them. Saye and Brush (2002) also utilised static

scaffolds that could be accessed by learners whenever they wanted. They found that

while useful, some learners would not seek out and access the scaffolds and

recommended a mix of static and dynamic scaffolds be used. However the studies

above referred to college student and school students respectively. Can they compare

with a professional development system?

I think that this is something that I will have to discuss with my validation group as I

cannot clarify the issues by myself and need to step away.

  J

Appendix J - Live Online Seminar Email Feedback Forms

Finance Bill 2011

 J  

 J  

 J  

 J  

 J  

Revenue Audits and Revenue Powers 2010

 J  

 J  

 J  

  K

Appendix K - Live Online Seminar Email Feedback

 L  

Appendix L - List of Captivate Slides (version two) and Web-

based Tutorial Interactions Captivate Slides

Slide 1 – Title

 L  

Slide 2 – What does the tutorial cover?

Slide 3 – The control bar

 L  

Slide 4 – Start the tutorial

Slide 5 – Email

 L  

Slide 6 – Joining a live online seminar 1

Slide 7 – Joining a live online seminar 2

 L  

Slide 8 –Joining a live online seminar 3

Slide 9 –Installing software

 L  

Slide 10 – Computer headset

Slide 11 – Computer headset

 L  

Slide 12 – Computer headset

Slide 13 – Computer headset

 L  

Slide 14 – Live online seminar screen

Slide 15 – Navigating the live online seminar screen

 L  

Slide 16 – The chat facility – opening chat facility

Slide 17 – The chat facility – message from Institute facilitator

 L  

Slide 18 – The chat facility – type question into chat box

Slide 19 – The chat facility – question displayed on chat record

 L  

Slide 20 – The chat facility – closing panel

Slide 21 – Leaving the live online seminar – close page

 L  

Slide 22 – Leaving the live online seminar

Slide 23 – End – contact details

 L  

Interaction list:

Interaction 1: Click on Start Tutorial Button

Interaction 2: Click on URL link to Join Live Online Seminar

Interaction 3: Click on Join now button

Interaction 4: Click on Call using Computer

Interaction 5: Type the word ‘question’ into the chat facility

  M

Appendix M - Questionnaire Results

1   2   3   4   5  

I  am  a  novice  computer  user  

I  am  an  expert  computer  user  

I  have  previously  par9cipated  in  a  live  online  seminar  

The  audio  quality  of  the  web-­‐based  tutorial  was  good  

The  speed  of  the  audio  was  at  an  appropriate  level  of  instruc9on  

The  screen  recording  video  quality  of  the  web-­‐based  tutorial  was  good  

The  speed  of  the  screen  recording  video  was  at  an  appropriate  level  of  

The  audio  and  screen  recording  video  of  the  web-­‐based  tutorial  were  well  

The  use  of  text  cap9ons  was  good  

The  audio  and  text  cap9ons  of  the  web-­‐based  tutorial  were  well  

The  colour  schemes  used  in  the  web-­‐based  tutorial  were  consistent  

The  screen  size  of  the  web-­‐based  tutorial  was  ideal  for  viewing  

Menu  control  of  the  web-­‐based  tutorial  was  convenient  

The  table  of  contents  was  convenient  

The  content  was  easy  to  understand  

The  use  of  interac9ve  simula9ons  was  beneficial  

Once  the  interac9ons  were  completed  the  next  sec9ons  displayed  quickly  

The  objec9ves  of  the  web-­‐based  tutorial  were  clear  

The  web-­‐based  tutorial  was  effec9ve  in  helping  me  to  understand  how  to  

The  web-­‐based  tutorial  was  an  efficient  way  to  learn  how  to  

I  would  have  to  watch  the  web-­‐based  tutorial  more  than  once  before  

Watching  the  web-­‐based  tutorial  would  reduce  the  need  to  contact  the  

Strongly  Disagree                                                                                                                  Strongly  Agree  

Ques&onnaire  Findings  (Likert)  

104  Complete  

103  Complete  

102  Complete  

101  Complete  

 M  

Summary of Questionnaire Findings

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

N/A

1. I am a novice

computer user

25% 50% 25%

2. I am an expert

computer user

50% 50%

3. I have previously

participated in a live

online seminar

25% 50% 25%

4. The audio quality of

the web-based tutorial

was good

25% 75%

5. The speed of the

audio was at an

appropriate level of

instruction

100%

6. The screen

recording video

quality of the web-

based tutorial was

good

25% 75%

7. The speed of the

screen recording video

was at an appropriate

level of instruction

100%

8. The audio and

screen recording video

of the web-based

tutorial were well

synchronised

100%

9. The use of text

captions was good

100%

10. The audio and text

captions of the web-

based tutorial were

well synchronised

25% 75%

 M  

11. The colour

schemes used in the

web-based tutorial

were consistent

25% 75%

12. The screen size of

the web-based tutorial

was ideal for viewing

25% 75%

13. Menu control of

the web-based tutorial

was convenient

75% 25%

14. The table of

contents was

convenient

25% 75%

15. The content was

easy to understand

100%

16. The use of

interactive simulations

was beneficial

50% 50%

17. Once the

interactions were

completed the next

sections displayed

quickly

25% 75%

18. The objectives of

the web-based tutorial

were clear

100%

19. The web-based

tutorial was effective

in helping me to

understand how to

participate in a live

online seminar

100%

20. The web-based

tutorial was an

efficient way to learn

how to participate in a

live online seminar

100%

 M  

21. I would have to

watch the web-based

tutorial more than

once before

participating in a live

online seminar

50% 50%

22. Watching the web-

based tutorial would

reduce the need to

contact the live online

seminar provider with

technical questions

25% 75%

23. Can you recommend any improvements to the web-based tutorial?

No I can't, i thought it was very clear and easy to understand.

No. well explained.

24. Have you any other comments about the web-based tutorial?

It was very clear and would encourage new users to online seminars well done great job

The tutorial was very clear and I liked the use of captions and the way I could interact with it.

I have said above that it should reduce the need for contacting the service provider with technical

questions and I do think it should. In my experience though people are less likely to take the time to go

through something and attempt it themselves if they think it's quicker to just call someone particularly

where IT systems are involved. I think the communication of a tool such as this is also very important

to train people into using it as a first resort but that's something to consider outside of the web-based

tutorial itself.

well explained.

 

 

 

  N

Appendix N - Correspondence with Critical Friend Elspeth Hennessy <elspeth.hennessy9@mail.dcu.ie>

11 June 2011 14:50

To: maevhen003@googlemail.com

http://www.irishtaxationinstitute.ie/Participating%20in%20a%20Live%20Online%20Seminar%20

Tutorial%20Version%20version%203%202%20resized/Participating%20in%20a%20Live%20O

nline%20Seminar%20Tutorial%20Version%20version%203%202resized.htm

Hi,

Here's a link to the web-based tutorial with the changes recommended by participants

implemented. The changes that I put through are as follows:

1. I removed the animation from the text on the “What will this tutorial cover?”

screen. Each point still appears as the narration begins but appears all together and

remains until the end of this section. I also did this in the “Leaving an online seminar”

screen

2. I added a table of contents and edited the narration on the “What will this tutorial

cover?” screen to advise learners that they can skip to the section of their choice by

clicking on the relevant entry on the table of contents on the left hand slide of the

screen.

3. I resized the tutorial so that learners can still see the full screen with the table of

contents added.

4. From analysis of the screen recordings, I reworded the captions for interactions

1, 3 & 4 to clarify where learners should click to proceed to the next section of the

tutorial. After receiving feedback from P4 I also reworded the caption for interaction 5

to emphasise that the word “question” should be typed in the chat box by placing the

word question in quotation marks and increasing the size of the word question.

5. I added in narration in the Join Meeting section to specify that the name

learners enter into the name field will appear in a participants’ list in the live online

seminar page. I also clarified that the email address entered does not have to be the

one used to order the live online seminar.

6. I added emphasis to the control to click when maximising the chat facility by

inserting a zoom area.

7. I added a new section dealing with the installation of software if this is the first

time accessing a live online seminar.

8. I edited the narration in slide 12 to inform learners that they will be automatically

muted when entering the live online seminar

 N  

Would you mind having a look and sending on any feedback you might have?

Thanks,

Els

_____________________________________________________________________________

Maeve Hennessy <maevhen003@googlemail.com>

12 June 2011 20:32

To: Elspeth Hennessy <elspeth.hennessy9@mail.dcu.ie>

Hi Elspeth,

I was able to read and had the time to comprehend the text on 'What will this tutorial cover?',

now that the animation has been removed. I found that a great help.

Although I had not felt it was necessary on my first viewing, I find the new table of contents very

helpful and practical, making this tutorial much more effective and professional.

I had no difficulty this time following the instructions to type in the word 'question', whereas I had

been confused previously, when I thought it must mean to type in my own or some other

question. The changes here really clarify it for me.

Should the upper half of the new page dealing with installation of software, be clearer, as it

seems a little difficult to see?

Can the page be resized so the top and bottom of the page may be seen at the same time -

especially in order to see where to click, as per instructions?

All in all, it is very clear and well set out. Your voice has a perfect tone for the job, being crystal

clear and pleasant on the ear. The pace both of speech and the text is just right.

Many thanks,

Maeve

[Quoted text hidden]

____________________________________________________________________________

 N  

Elspeth Hennessy <elspeth.hennessy9@mail.dcu.ie>

12 June 2011 20:57

Draft To: Maeve Hennessy <maevhen003@googlemail.com>

Thank you very much for the feedback

Maeve Hennessy <maevhen003@googlemail.com>

27 June 2011 07:40

To: Elspeth Hennessy <elspeth.hennessy9@mail.dcu.ie>

Hi Elspeth,

Sorry for delay in feedback. Well done on your tutorial and also the implementation chapter,

setting out your values and how these are implemented in the tutorial. As an adult literacy tutor,

working in adult basic education, I share your values of empathy (Rogers and Maslow) and

philosophy of social constructivism, in which scaffolding (Vygotsky) is an essential part of the

learning process, taking into account and facilitating multiple intelligences (Gardner) and

individual learning styles (Kolb and Fry) - also the level of prior knowledge and learner

experience and building on these, for the purpose of independent, self-directed learning. In the

various modules for my training, I have learned of the theories of Kolb and Fry, Gardner,

Vygotsky, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow and see them all put into practice here, in the way

you have implemented your online tutorial: firstly, in the manner you created it - a very clear,

easy to follow, step-by-step approach and secondly, in your process of looking for fruitful

feedback and then acting accordingly, making changes in the tutorial to facilitate each

individual's separate needs. This response is underpinned by respect and empathy for

the individual learner and his or her requirements and shows your values very clearly.

I have taken some of your writing and quoted below, with my responses.

Kind regards,

Maeve

Is the account of my learning comprehensible?

Yes. I can understand your learning by the theories quoted and witnessing how you have put

these theories into practice - you created the tutorial in accordance with the stated values of

scaffolding and holding empathy with the learner.

Is there sufficient evidence to justify the claims being made?

 N  

Plenty – 1)evaluations, questionnaire, critical friend. 2)Reading of specific difficulties ironed out

and problems being solved for the individual learners, representative of the multiple learner.3)all

based on sound academic sources e.g. Bruner, Ross, Vygotsky

Are my educational values clearly revealed and justified?

Very much so – the stress is very obviously on empathy and sensitivity towards the learner and

his individual needs, style of learning and ability/level of computer literacy. It is equally on the

value of scaffolding in tutoring – making it possible for a learner to move from ‘their actual and

present zone of development to their proximal zone of development’ and then, as you say,

when they no longer experience the need for this scaffold, they themselves simply ‘let it fade’.

The values are based on solid academic foundations guided by the relevant theorists, whose

teaching underpins your work. They are justified in the practical sense, in that the multiple

learner is facilitated to learn more effectively (see proofs in previous para) which shows they

actually work (behaviourist) and justified ethically, as they uphold the right of each individual to

access the education necessary and relevant to him, regardless of prior knowledge or personal

circumstances.

Is there evidence of my learning in the learning of others?

I believe there is. This socially constructivist tutorial, created through the values of empathy and

scaffolding and tailored to individual needs, makes it possible for the individual learner to

understand and navigate an online seminar – see all the earlier proofs cited e.g. evaluations

etc. – again catering for various learning styles, levels of computer literacy/prior knowledge and

of confidence.

The only change I would tentatively suggest, as a tutor in basic education, who regularly

encourages my learners to make honest evaluations of their classes, so they may constantly be

improved for the benefit of all, is in the first open-ended question. I should make it even more

open-ended by asking the student to 'identify or name one or two changes you would make, if

any, in this work, for the benefit of the individual learner'. I would prefer not to give them too

easy an opportunity to answer 'No.'