Ola Berge

Annita Fjuk

Socio-cultural Perspectives on Object-oriented Learning

One of the central objectives of project COOL is to explore critical aspects associated with learning (and teaching) object-oriented concepts. This objective will be pursued by bringing forth the heritage of Kristen Nygaard and the Norwegian approach to object-orientation. The project will develop learning material based on this work and intends to make the material available to the object-oriented community in the form of reusable learning objects. This paper explores how social-cultural theories can inform design of learning objects and the learning environments they will be a part of.

Background

The three-year (2002)(2003)(2004)(2005) interdisciplinary research project COOL (Comprehensive Object-Oriented Learning) is aimed at maintaining and further developing the Norwegian heritage from object-orientation. The project was initiated by Kristen Nygaard (C.f. Nygaard 2002), and addresses issues that provide insights into how objectoriented ways of thinking can be applied and further developed in a variety of problem areas and fields. One important aspect of this work is to explore the complex area of learning (and teaching) object-oriented concepts.

In object-oriented ways of approaching a problem area, fundamental concepts must be considered as tightly interrelated and cannot arguably be explained in isolation. Because the approach has a close logical relationship to physical worlds (with physical objects and their properties), some educational institutions find it rather trivial to design and organize qualitative learning activities (personal communication). Others, however, have proven this to be complicated activities (Kölling 1999a;[START_REF] Holmberg | Theory and Practice of Distance Education[END_REF]. In agreement with the latter view, we believe that it is not object-orientation in principle that cause the problems, but the constellation of artifacts available to learn it. In this context, artifacts are generally interpreted as ranging from learning material, pedagogical approaches and methods, scaffolding techniques to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). In agreement with an object-oriented philosophy, we strongly believe that the relationships between these artifacts are rather interwoven, implying that it is complicated, sometimes even impossible, to consider what artifacts that are most critical with respect to the learners' understanding of the object-oriented philosophy and corresponding concepts. In COOL, we will explore this complexity though an appropriate number of test cases, and further experiment with new approaches and examples that are inspired by Nygaard's emphasis on the modeling aspect of object-orientation.

In contrast to learning environments that simply transform organizational and pedagogical approaches from nonobject oriented paradigms (C.f. project description1 ), COOL is aimed at incorporating the specific objectoriented characteristics and philosophy into innovative learning environments where ICTs have mediating positions. This objective is grounded in a number of case studies on net-based and ICT-mediated learning environments [START_REF] Fjuk | Computer Support for Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF][START_REF] Fjuk | The Complexity of Distributed Collaborative Learning: Unit of Analysis[END_REF] that conclude that an ICT-mediated learning environment is a product of complex interconnections between several aspects, such as: theories of learning and instruction, subject domains, delivery institution's educational practice and tradition, organizational and administrative arrangements, properties of ICT and available software, etc. The problem area of past research within this field is, however, that they mirror a partial thinking with respect to these aspects. Such approaches though do not provide directions for designing learning environments that are relying on its' own specific conditions.

Outlined from earlier studies, we argue that blended learning environments are promising with respect to learning complex problem areas and subject matters. Blended learning is a fairly new term (Kahn & Linquist 2002), but the concept has been around for decades in areas like distance education [START_REF] Holmberg | Theory and Practice of Distance Education[END_REF]. As practiced in distance education, the blend is described through supplemented use of classroom and assistance of technology (in a wide sense, i.e., ranging from letter correspondence to advanced ICTs) [START_REF] Smith | Blended Learning. An old friend gets a new name[END_REF]). In the context of COOL, the core concern is to utilize the specific conditions manifested in a combination of available ICTs, pedagogical approaches, didactical techniques and various learning resources so as to offer the students meaningful environments for knowledge construction.

In line with Nygaard's vision of producing didactical modules that should be made available across institutional traditions, courses and ICT solutions, COOL aims at designing and organizing the learning content in terms of digital and reusable learning objects. This paper gives priority to this latter issue, and discusses the potential of using socio-cultural theories to understand and design the format of the learning objects. Concerning the specific content, this is discussed elsewhere (C.f. [START_REF] Groven | Comprehensive Object-Oriented Learning, A Modeling Approach[END_REF].

The next section gives a short introduction to the concept reusable learning objects and the standardization initiatives currently taking place in the e-learning industry. The underlying pedagogical approach is discussed in relation to the approach taken in COOL. This is followed by a presentation on socio-cultural perspectiveswhich is the theoretical foundations for the work described in this paper -and how these perspectives can be used for understanding design of reusable learning objects incorporated into learning environments resting on its own conditions.

Reusable learning objects

The fundamental idea behind the area concerning reusable learning objects (RLOs) is to break a larger block of electronic learning content into smaller pieces. Two of the main benefits of this modular approach are the easy updating of content, by swapping in new objects for outdated ones, and the ability to reuse content by using learning objects within other object-based content [START_REF] Edmonds | Learning Objects in Practice[END_REF]. This is a concept familiar to practitioners of object-oriented programmers, and Wiley states "Learning objects are elements of a new type of computer-based instruction grounded in the object-oriented paradigm of computer science" [START_REF] Wiley | Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy[END_REF]. We do not find it apparent that there is a strong relation between learning objects and object-orientation as we know it in computer science. Discussion of this issue, however, is out of scope for this paper.

A learning object is constituted by the learning content and a set of metadata describing the content. The content can be any element usually associated with multimedia content: text, graphics, animation, sound, movie, or a combination of these. There is no generally accepted definition of a RLO. For example, NETg [1] defines it by three components that must be present: the object must have a measurable objective, it must have an activity that exactly matches this objective, and it must have an assessment. Wiley defines a learning object as "any digital resource that can be reused to support learning" [START_REF] Wiley | Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy[END_REF]. Some equate a RLO to a single graphic or video file, others equate a RLO to a small piece of instruction that targets a specific performance goal [START_REF] Nichani | LCMS = LMS + CMS [RLOs[END_REF].

Reusable Learning Objects are at the core of the standardization processes that are currently carried out in the elearning community. These processes are represented by initiatives such as Instructional Management Systems Project • Metadata descriptions: Definition of bibliographical data, keywords describing subject matter, target groups, learning objectives, level of difficulty, etc. By standardizing the format of the modules, or learning objects, the learning material becomes more robust with respect to changes in underlying infrastructure, and one makes interoperability across various Learning Management Systems (LMS) or Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS), courses, ICTs, etc. Generally, the purpose of a LMS is to simplify the administration of learning/training programs within an organization by improved delivery and tracking of content. A LCMS combines the administrative and management dimensions of a traditional LMS with functionality from Content Management Systems [START_REF] Edmonds | Learning Objects in Practice[END_REF].

The use of RLOs is regarded as an adequate approach, as a standardized approach to development of RLOs aspires to providing learning material that can be reused across various ICT-platforms, educational institutions, courses, L(C) MS', etc. There are, however, some problematic issues that need to be addressed before such an undertaking can be accomplished.

The standardization initiatives seem to be anchored (more or less consciously) in a cognitivistic perspective on learning. In this view, learning "becomes the process by which the problem solver acquires a proper representation on a problem space. Instruction, then, consists of activities designed to facilitate the acquisition of such representation by the learner" (Koschmann 1996, p. 7) and the redemption of missing or incorrect knowledge. One indication of this underlying perspective on learning is the emphasis on tests and mechanisms to express prerequisites for accessing a learning object. Another is the assumption that a learning material belongs to a course (or a similar structure). The cognitivist perspective on learning tend to rely on a pre-defined syllabus and regard the learning material as the primary -if not sole -means for knowledge construction. Applied in design of learning objects, the objective becomes to integrate well-defined plans for what to do when, ended by a test for measuring the effectiveness of the content [START_REF] Hoel | Standardisering av e-laering: Bygges morgendagens laeringsteknologi på gårdagens laeringssyn?[END_REF].

Typically the e-learning industry targets learning situations where the learning objective is related to skill acquisition, for example how to operate a Xerox machine or how to configure a network router. These are quite different from the learning situation students of object-oriented concepts are facing. In project COOL, we seek to explore the potential of using socio-cultural perspectives as guiding framework for understanding and designing learning environments directed towards this particular subject domain and its characteristics.

Socio-cultural perspectives and directions for designs

Socio-cultural perspectives [START_REF] Vygotsky | Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes[END_REF][START_REF] Cole | Cultural Psychology. A once and a future discipline[END_REF][START_REF] Wertsch | Mind as Action[END_REF][START_REF] Leont'ev | Activity. Consciousness. Personality[END_REF]Engeström 1987;[START_REF] Cole | A Cultural-historical Approach to Distributed Cognition[END_REF]) constitute rich frameworks for studying different forms of practices as developmental processes, with individual and social issues interlinked at the same time (Kuutti 1996). [START_REF] Vygotsky | Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes[END_REF] was among the first to recognize the importance of the societal dimension in the educative process. He therefore sought to define those aspects of social engagement that concern the development of mental processing [START_REF] Mcmahon | Computer-Mediated Zones of Engagement in Learning[END_REF]. A key issue in his research is that intellectual development takes place on two levels. First it appears on a social level, through interpersonal processes. Then it appears on an individual level through intrapersonal processes. In COOL context, social interactions are understood in a variety of ways, -ranging from collaboration between peers to problem solving under guidance of a tutor or a more capable peer. Kristen Nygaard emphasized that object-orientation represents a philosophy in which the principle multiperspective reflection -the consideration of the phenomena from many different perspectives -is essential. We argue that collaboratively oriented learning approaches are particularly well suited for organizing this principle and negotiation of opposed alternatives and meanings [START_REF] Fjuk | Articulation of Actions in Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF].

It is the interwoven relationship between artefacts, activities and human development that make socio cultural theories so powerful with respect to design of learning environments where various ICTs have central positions.

Through their studies of past research, [START_REF] Fjuk | The Complexity of Distributed Collaborative Learning: Unit of Analysis[END_REF] conclude that the tendency is that the activities mediated by ICT constitute a unit of analysis themselves, rather than additional and interconnected aspects that are manifested in the ICT environment. Socio-cultural analysis2 expands the unit of analysis beyond the context of one given activity system, but as a complex mix of various interconnected activity systems [START_REF] Fjuk | The Complexity of Distributed Collaborative Learning: Unit of Analysis[END_REF]. In an activity system there are potential contradictions or tensions between all components of the systems (Engeström 1987). Contradictions are used to indicate 'misfit' within elements of an activity, and between different developmental phases of a single activity. Contradictions manifest themselves as problems, breakdowns, clashes, etc., within the system itself or in relation to other systems (Kuutti 1996). An individual learner's actions will be affected by three major factors: the tools used, the environment she/he belongs to and its explicitly or implicitly expressed rules and, the division of labor within that community. When the unit of analysis expands to the interaction between different activity systems, the complexity that we are dealing with increases.

Used in COOL, socio-cultural analysis provides the following important issues, illustrated in Figure 1: The learner's activities directed towards construction of knowledge on object-orientation is mediated by a constellation of artifacts, including a variety of ICTs and learning objects. The learner's relationship to the blended learning environment is mediated by certain didactical principles and scaffolding techniques as well as predefined pedagogical approaches. Furthermore, the learner's commitment to the learning environment is also mediated by the roles embedded in the social interactions (e.g., the power each yields, tasks each is responsible for, etc.). Important aspects to consider are contradictions that manifest themselves in a practice of introducing digital learning objects. The figure illustrates the importance of looking for possible contradictions that manifest themselves through application of traditional didactical principles and pedagogical approaches (for example anchored in a non-objective paradigm and/or in traditional face-to-face situations). Based on past research [START_REF] Fjuk | Computer Support for Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF], we argue that new approaches that incorporate the specific conditions of the new learning situations are a critical activity.

Furthermore, socio-cultural analysis provides with a consciousness on considering the role of the artefacts used.

An artefact has a two-sided, but mutually dependent, role: 1.) as the mediator of the communicative aspect of an action, that is, the way knowledge is constructed about the phenomenon of question, and 2) the chosen tools that mediate the operational aspect of the same action. Let us illustrate this issue with a well-known example: A word processing program is the operational means for the individual act of writing, and writing is a communicative means for reflection and interpersonal interactions. The outcome of the action is framed by the embedded conditions of the artefact [START_REF] Leont'ev | Activity. Consciousness. Personality[END_REF].

Considering digital learning objects as artefacts, the theoretical position provides guidelines for considering contradictions associated with the following research-and design areas: How should the constellation of learning objects be designed with respect to the duality between the communicative and the operational aspect of human actions? First, this implies how the content should be presented to support knowledge construction. Second, it implies the conditions metadata and standardization put on the content and how it is presented. One central question is if the dominating standards and standard proposals are applicable for learning objects designed for use in learning situations based on a socio-cultural perspective on learning. Closely connected to these issues, is:

How and to what extent should the pedagogical approaches be incorporated into the designs? It is clear that learning situations based on the cognitivist perspective are different from those based on the socio-cultural perspective. This difference has a profound impact on the design of learning environments, but it is not obvious that this is true for design of the learning material. The role of the learning material is different in the two traditions, but does it follow that they should be designed differently? This means considerations on whether the designs should incorporate the pedagogical philosophy and as such, direct the use of the learning objects. Furthermore, it also means a consideration on an opposite approach, i.e., to focus on the object-oriented content and leave the pedagogical philosophy to the organizational design. In this way, the focus of the research become to study one particular constellation of learning objects and exploring its effects within various pedagogical approaches and institutional constraints.

Concluding Remarks

This paper applies a socio-cultural perspective on the area of learning object-oriented concepts. We have raised a number of issues concerning design of learning objects and learning environments for knowledge construction in this field. Project COOL explores these issues by studying current practices as well as by experimenting with new constellations of artifacts. Early activities include the development of courses that introduces learners and practitioners to fundamental object-oriented concepts through approaches such as "models first" and "objects first". The courses will be developed evolutionary, where experience from the first courses, planned to be held in Oslo in the summer of 2003, will provide insights for further improvement of the subsequent activities.

The socio-cultural perspectives give directions for design of how tools (e.g. KarelJ or BlueJ) and other ICTs should be incorporated in the learning activity. Concerning the latter, it challenges how existing and new learning material should be implemented as learning objects in ICT-based learning environments. Last, but not least, it provides guidelines for how to understand the meaning of social interaction with respect to learning.

About the Authors

Annita Fjuk is Dr. Scient in Informatics, from University of Oslo, and is currently employed by Telenor R&D and Intermedia, University of Oslo. She is project leader of COOL. Her research interests are particularly directed towards design of ICT-based learning environments, an area she has worked in since the late 80'ies. Socio-cultural perspectives and activity theory have had an important position in her work.

Ola Berge is a PhD student at Intermedia, University of Oslo (funded by the COOL project). His primary research interest is on reusable learning objects in learning situations based on a constructivistic approach. Ola Berge has worked with ICT and learning since 1997, most recently as a research scientist at Telenor R & D.

  [2] from IMS Global Learning Consortium, the EU project ARIADNE [3], AICC [4] from the aviation industry, the Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative [5] initiated by the American Department of Defense, PROMETEUS [6], an open initiative supported by EU, or the work done in sub-committee 36 of ISO /IEC JCT1 [7] and the IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee [8]. Generally, these initiatives focus on three main issues:

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Activity system 3

  Standardization to ensure that content and other data such as log data and status information to be exchanged and shared by separate Learning (Content) Management Systems.

• Content structures: Recognizable structures are perceived as a prerequisite for interchange of content between various Learning Management Systems. One example of such a structure is found in SCORM, which is constituted by the three levels Asset, Sharable Content Object (SCO), and Block. An Asset is the basic element of content, such as a section of text or an illustration. An SCO contains two or more Assets. A Block is a hierarchical representation of several SCOs (or other Blocks). By the help of a Content Structure Format one can aggregate the learning content into a comprehensive unit such as a course, a module in a topic, etc.

• Interoperability:

http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~kristen/FORSKNINGSDOK_MAPPE/F_COOL1.html

Parts of the text used in this section, is first presented and discussed in[START_REF] Fjuk | The Complexity of Distributed Collaborative Learning: Unit of Analysis[END_REF].

The figure is inspired by(Engeström 1987).


Martin Oliver
email: martin.oliver@ucl.ac.uk

Graham P Shaw
email: gshaw@mail.barry.edu

ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION IN SUPPORT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION

Keywords: Asynchronous discussion, Tutor, Assessment, Learning effectiveness, Student satisfaction

Although the potential of asynchronous discussion to support learning is widely recognized, student engagement remains problematic.

Often, for example, students simply refuse to participate. Consequently the rich promise of asynchronous learning networks for supporting students' learning can prove hard to achieve.

After reviewing strategies for encouraging student participation in discussions in Asynchronous Learning Networks (ALN), we present a study that investigates how these strategies influenced students' perceptions and use of the discussion area. We identify and explore factors that encouraged and inhibited student participation in asynchronous discussion, and evaluate student postings to an asynchronous discussion group by content analysis.

The results question received wisdom about some of the pedagogic techniques advocated in the literature. Instead, results support the view that the major factors for stimulating student participation in asynchronous discussion are tutor enthusiasm and expertise. It appears that the tutor may be the root cause of engagement in discussions, an important conclusion, given that to date, the tutor's role has remained relatively unexamined. We also note that participation in asynchronous discussion is inhibited when students allocate a low priority to participation, as may occur when participation is not assessed. Content analysis of an asynchronous discussion in this study reveals that contributions were not strongly interactive and that students were simply 'playing the game' of assessment, making postings that earned marks but rarely contributing otherwise. Thus the use of assessment to encourage students' contributions appears to be only a superficial success; it seems likely that giving credit for postings changes behavior without necessarily improving learning. This finding has significant implications for curriculum design.

I. INTRODUCTION

The potential of asynchronous discussion to support learning is widely recognized. However, learning benefits are not inherent in the technology, but depend upon collaborative activities. Thus, for example, improvements in the quality of learning may be more likely if students actively participate in interactive online learning, if the tutor adopts a collaborative pedagogic strategy, and if students participate in a collaborative assignment [START_REF] Hiltz | Measuring the Importance of Collaborative Learning for the Effectiveness of ALN: A Multi-Measure, Multi-Method Approach[END_REF]. Key to such recommendations is engagement in discussions in an asynchronous learning network.

Despite the fact that students' participation in asynchronous discussion is vital to maintaining interest, motivation, and engagement in active learning, participation remains problematic. Consequently, promoting discourse has become a major role of the e-moderator [START_REF] Anderson | Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context[END_REF]. In this section, existing research on strategies for encouraging student participation in Asynchronous Learning Networks will be reviewed.

A. Using asynchronous discussion to support learning

Mason [START_REF] Mason | Moderating educational computer conferences[END_REF] and others, for example, Paulsen [START_REF] Paulsen | Moderating educational computer conferences[END_REF], advocate the primary role of the e-moderator as providing a friendly, social environment where effective learning can take place. These writers adopt what might be referred to as pedagogic determinism, proposing that "sensitive and appropriate conference design and the e-moderator's intervention cause the socializing to occur." From this position, a number of techniques or models have been proposed, each of which attempts to specify what an appropriate design and form of intervention ought to be. Warren and Rada, for example, suggest that:

… for participants to gain from and sustain potential benefits of online interaction, (a) they must begin contributing to collaborative learning immediately at the start of a virtual course; (b) the tutor must be involved as facilitator, encourager, structure provider and resource; (c) interaction must be required, structured and graded; and (d) participants must be 'mature, motivated learners'… They must also (a) share an interest and commitment to a well-defined task, (b) have ease of access to a reliable computer network, (c) feel a sense of responsibility to the group, (d) experience strong leadership and anticipate a final evaluation of the group task [START_REF] Warren | Sustaining computer-mediated communication in university courses[END_REF]. Salmon proposes an even more detailed five-stage model for what she calls e-moderating, which also takes into account the idea that the nature of communication may change at different points during a course [START_REF] Salmon | E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online[END_REF].

In spite of guidelines such as these, studies show that the implementation of ALN-based discussion remains problematic. In some cases, for example, students simply refuse to participate.

No matter what I did, I could not get students to use the VC (virtual classroom). I sent them reminders that it was required. They would say, "I don't know how". I would send them a message on how to do it, they would say, "I don't have an account….." Instructor A: Hiltz et al, [START_REF] Hiltz | Measuring the Importance of Collaborative Learning for the Effectiveness of ALN: A Multi-Measure, Multi-Method Approach[END_REF] A lack of participation may result from one of any number of reasons, including technical problems [START_REF] Pilkington | An Evaluation of Computer Mediated Communication to Support Group Discussion in Continuing Education[END_REF], limited access to a computer [START_REF] Hiltz | Impacts of college-level courses via asynchronous learning networks: some preliminary results[END_REF], feeling lost in the discussion, falling 'too far' behind the discussion [START_REF] Hiltz | Impacts of college-level courses via asynchronous learning networks: some preliminary results[END_REF][START_REF] Owen | Structure and Discourse in a telematic learning environment[END_REF], a lack of confidence or understanding [START_REF] Shaw | The Use of Asynchronous Learning Networks in Nutrition Education: Student Attitude, Experiences and Performance[END_REF], not having mastered the medium or specialist language of a particular forum, or simply being a 'freeloader' [START_REF] Salmon | E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online[END_REF].

Each of these might be seen as a challenge to overcome. However, there is also what might be described as dilemmas, problems for which there simply does not seem to be a 'right' answer. For example, communication tools may be poorly used unless the tutor facilitates discussion; yet at the same time, the tutor's presence in discussion forums can stifle student participation [START_REF] Pilkington | An Evaluation of Computer Mediated Communication to Support Group Discussion in Continuing Education[END_REF]. Such complexities, and their influence on learning, are yet to be fully understood.

It should also be noted that students' non-participation in asynchronous discussion might not be such a bad thing [START_REF] Shaw | The Use of Asynchronous Learning Networks in Nutrition Education: Student Attitude, Experiences and Performance[END_REF], since they can learn a considerable amount simply from observing a dialogue [START_REF] Mckendree | Why observing a dialogue may benefit learning[END_REF].

B. The influence of assessment on participation

One particularly influential element of pedagogy recurs in the literature on ALNs: assessment. Warren and Rada conclude that grading contributions was one cause of increased postings [START_REF] Warren | Sustaining computer-mediated communication in university courses[END_REF]. However, Jones' ethnographic study vividly illustrates the pitfalls that can arise when using assessment to stimulate participation [START_REF] Jones | Evaluating a collaborative online learning environment[END_REF]. The course he describes explicitly encouraged online collaboration, and credit was given for such activities. As part of this study, he observed a group of students meet face-to-face in a computer lab; they then created a series of emails to each other, based on prepared notes, in order to maximize their marks. This example shows how students learn how to play the game of assessment, and how drastically it can distort their behavior.

In contrast, Beaudin's study of online tutors questions the centrality of assessment, suggesting that it may be a relatively unimportant strategy in terms of keeping discussion on-topic [START_REF] Beaudin | Keeping online asynchronous discussion on topic[END_REF]. Respondents believed assessment to be less influential than, for example, carefully designed questions, providing guidelines for learners, or rewording questions, particularly for tutors who had taught five or more online courses in the last three years. However, interestingly, he also raises the possibility that the differences in perceived importance may also suggest that experienced tutors are more realistic than relative novices about the value of such techniques in keeping discussions on-topic, concluding that further studies might be required to understand what these tutors actually do.

C. Summary

The rich promise of ALNs for supporting students' learning may prove hard to achieve. It cannot be assumed that provision of a technological infrastructure will somehow cause collaboration and learning to take place. However, various factors seem to influence whether or not students engage in asynchronous discussions, ranging from the pragmatic (for example, easy access) to the pedagogic (for example, the influence of assessment). The remainder of this paper describes a study in which the students' views on the relative importance of different factors were analyzed in relation to their actual participation in a range of discussion forums.

II. METHODS

A. The educational context of this study

The California College of Podiatric Medicine is a private, non-profit organization previously based in Vallejo, California.

The Podiatric curriculum is consistent with that of the majority of other medical schools and places significant demands on student time. Furthermore, because course examinations are routinely scheduled on Monday mornings, the precise time (over the weekend) when students needed faculty support the most was the time when they were most inaccessible.

During the spring semester of 2000, full time faculty in the department of basic medical sciences were given the opportunity to support their respective courses with a variety of asynchronous learning networks in an effort to enhance faculty-student collaboration. In addition to a discussion group, in which subjectbased interaction between faculty and students and between students could take place, faculty were able to establish discussion groups to share mnemonics or to make course-related postings and administrative changes in a Notices forum. With the exception of the author (Graham Shaw), this was the first exposure of faculty to asynchronous learning environments in support of medical education. Adoption of this technology was not made compulsory.

All courses were delivered using a traditional lecture or lecture/laboratory paradigm. The asynchronous learning environments were designed to run alongside lectures and laboratories and to promote interpersonal interactions between students and between faculty and students independent of place and time. Student participation in the various asynchronous learning environments was not compulsory initially; though, in an attempt to stimulate participation in the Biochemistry environment, credit was given for posting an assignment summary toward the end of the semester.

At the start of the semester the students were given an introduction to the asynchronous learning environment that included an online demonstration of the technology and clear written guidelines as to its use. In order to use the learning environment, students were required to register as a new user by completing a short online registration form and thereafter access was by username and password. Within the Biochemistry conference students were able to post a message, reply, delete, or 'post a new topic'. The Biochemistry conference was a closed learning environment visible only to the students in the course and to the course tutor. Student postings to the conference were not screened. The other discussion boards were open, allowing all registered students to view and post messages.

The conference starts with a 'Welcome' message posted by the Biochemistry moderator. In this message the moderator adopts a friendly, personal tone as advocated by Mason, encouraging participation [START_REF] Mason | Moderating educational computer conferences[END_REF]. Since this is the students' first interaction with ALNs, the moderator uses a 'light hearted' exercise to start and invites student contributions on the topic of Christmas holidays.

B. Student cohort

The class of 2003 is composed of 67 students (72% male, 28% female). White students constitute the majority (70%) with the remainder composed of African American (4%), Asian (18%), Hispanic/ Mexican American/Puerto Rican (4%), and Native American (4%). 75% of students responded to the questionnaire; their academic backgrounds are shown in Table 1 Within the questionnaire, in addition to basic demographic data such as gender and grade point average (GPA) on entry, students were asked to categorise their familiarity with using computers and the Internet and how many messages they contributed to each discussion board. They were also given a list of things that might have encouraged or prevented their participation, drawn from the themes identified in the literature, and asked to say how important each of these had been in influencing their engagement with the discussion. Students were also asked to rate how important each board had been in helping them to understand the topic, and to improve their scores for the course. Finally, students were invited to give feedback on the course.

D. Content analysis

In addition to the survey, one cohort's postings to an asynchronous discussion forum were analysed. The issue of how best to analyse such postings is widely debated; however, content analysis is frequently advocated as being suitable for such tasks [START_REF] Mason | Evaluating Technology-Based Learning[END_REF]. This study was influenced by the work of Pilkington and others on dialogue, which concentrates on the interaction of particular types of 'moves' in conversations [START_REF] Pilkington | An Evaluation of Computer Mediated Communication to Support Group Discussion in Continuing Education[END_REF]. In practice, the structure of discussions that arose gave little opportunity for sustained conversations to be analyzed in this way; consequently, the data were classified into fairly broad categories (discussions of the subject and the course, or discussions of other issues, including technical problems) and then subclassified according to their status as conversational moves. This involved deciding whether a posting was a question, a self-contained statement, or a response. Responses were further sub-divided into 'response: answer,' 'response: additional question,' 'response: answer and additional question,' and 'response: statement.' Those responses which ended with a question invited further contributions to that particular conversational thread; those which were classified as answers attempted to provide a 'correct' response that would end the thread. 'Response: statements' offered opinions which were not integrated into the discussion; they were effectively asides from the conversation, and often simply indicated a person's opinion on a topic in a way that did not invite response.

This classification enabled a more detailed investigation of how the students acted in an online discussion, and a judgement of whether or not this engagement was particularly constructive. It also allowed issues of the reliability of students' responses to be investigated.

While the technology used to support each asynchronous learning environment remained the same, the topics and pedagogies varied. The following asynchronous learning networks provide the data for this study: Biochemistry, Lower Extremity Anatomy Discussion, Lower Extremity Anatomy Notices, Human Anatomy Notices, Human Anatomy Discussion, and Human Anatomy Mnemonics. These levels of response fall slightly below those observed by Morris and others, who observed approximately 3 replies to every original message [START_REF] Morris | Student use of computer-mediated communication in an Open University Level 1 Course: Academic or Social?[END_REF]. In this study, the level is around 2 replies per original message.

III. RESULTS

A. Students' attitudes towards the context for discussion

A primary aim for this study was to examine what students felt was important in encouraging them to contribute to the discussion, or what prevented their engagement. For each of these, students were offered five statements, modelled on issues in the literature, and asked to rate their importance using a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as the weakest agreement and 5 as the strongest. There were 60 responses to the questionnaire (90%). Of these responses, 43 (71%) were male, and the average GPA score was 3.36, suggesting that the respondents were representative of the class as a whole. The results are summarized in Table 3.

Incentives Range Median Mode

The tutor was really enthusiastic about people using discussion areas 1-5 This descriptive analysis suggests that few of these issues are particularly important in influencing students' contributions to discussions. Although a few items had a median of three, only one had a mode above 1. Thus the only item that particularly stands out concerns the tutor's enthusiasm.

Other items seem to have had some small impact include students' priorities: that they felt they didn't have enough time and didn't think this would be particularly helpful, that this represented another avenue for questioning the tutor, and that contribution was assessed. The only noteworthy disincentive appears to be a general lack of time to participate. Rather than taking lack of time at face value, however, it may be more appropriate to interpret this as signifying that the non-compulsory nature of participation may have led students to allocate a low priority to participation (cf. Morris and others [START_REF] Morris | Student use of computer-mediated communication in an Open University Level 1 Course: Academic or Social?[END_REF]).

Analytically, there seemed to be no difference in terms of attitudes between genders (although there was a slight trend for men to be more reluctant than women to share their resources: Mann Whitney U, n=60, p<0.076). However, students whose GPA on entry was below the class average felt more likely to contribute if they had the option of doing so anonymously (Mann Whitney U: n=60, p<0.042), and were more likely to feel that they had nothing to contribute to the discussion (Mann Whitney U: n=60, p<0.011). There was also a trend suggesting that students with a lower GPA than the class average were more likely to perceive the discussion forum as a 'bolt on' rather than an integral part of the course (Mann Whitney U:, n=60, p<0.061), suggesting that they were less clear about its pedagogic role.

Others indicators of students' attitudes were drawn from the correlation of students' self-reported number of postings on each of the four bulletin boards to which they had posting rights, and how helpful they felt that each board had been in terms of both improving their understanding and improving their scores. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there was a significant correlation with each of the sets of data between the extent to which students felt the board improved their understanding, and the extent to which it helped them improve their scores (Pearson: 1-tailed, n=60, p<0.01). Slightly less clear-cut, but perhaps more interesting, are the relationships between students' self-reported contribution to a board and its perceived usefulness. The following significant correlations emerged (Pearson: For the bulletin board that forms the focus for this study, Biochemistry, there was no relationship between whether or not students contributed messages and any perceived improvement in understanding or scores. This provides some support for the claim that lurkers are not necessarily disadvantaged by their behavior. However, the picture seems markedly different for the other two courses, Human Anatomy and Lower Extremity Anatomy, raising the question of how use of these discussion areas differed. Understanding seemed to be linked to contribution for the Lower Extremity Anatomy courses, and scores appear to be linked to participation in Human Anatomy. This suggests that the influence here lay in the tutors' pedagogic use of the boards, rather than the technology, which remained the same).

B. Requests for further resources

In addition to the closed items on the questionnaires, students were invited to say what further resources might be useful to support their learning. Most responses concerned information management issues, such as:

• Links to other sites on this topic (6)

• Downloadable copies of slides and handouts (4)

• Copies of past assessments (2)

• Formative self-assessment exercises (4)

• A course syllabus (2)

• Pictures, illustrations and videos used in the course (6)

• Information on administrative issues for the course (1)

• A study guide (1)

However, one student requested a social discussion forum for students on the course, and another took this opportunity to complain that the bulletin board was unusable because the volume of messages was overwhelming.

C. The influence of the tutor

It is interesting to consider the characteristics of each tutor and how the ALN was integrated into each course. The Biochemistry discussion was moderated by a tutor with previous e-moderating experience, considerable enthusiasm for the media and an appreciation of the learning benefits of ALNs. Within the Biochemistry course, continual reference was made to the discussion group throughout the program in class time, and students were encouraged to take an active/interactive role in their own learning. In addition, the class was directed to the asynchronous discussion forum in order to take advantage of learning resources such as websites posted by their peers. These resources were not available elsewhere and gave the discussion group some added value. It was hoped that this would stimulate student interest in the media. Toward the end of the Biochemistry program as interest in the discussion board was waning, the tutor suggested to the class that additional credit could be obtained for posting a paper summary to the discussion board in an effort to promote interaction with the medium.

Lower Extremity Anatomy was taught by an experienced traditional tutor with no previous experience of ALNs. This tutor was prepared to embrace the technology and was receptive to the advantages of the media. Given the intensity of the Podiatric program and the high proportion of 'in class' hours this tutor was prepared to utilize ALNs to facilitate 'anywhere-anytime' learning providing that it was student-led.

The tutor made announcements regarding the existence of the asynchronous discussion forum in class time and informed the students of the need for them to take an active role in its use. The technology is in place and if the students want to use it to explore more in-depth aspects of the course outside of class time I am happy to respond, though these interactions should be initiated by the student. Human Anatomy was taught by a very experienced traditional tutor with no prior experience of ALNs. He was very enthusiastic about the potential of the technology to enhance student-faculty interaction and referred to the existence of the discussion board repeatedly during the early stages of the course, occasionally posting messages during this period.

Two faculty in the department of Basic Medical Sciences did not utilize ALN, citing workload and contentment with operations currently in place as inhibiting factors. Shifter reports that non-participating faculty most commonly cite lack of technical support provided by the institution and concern about the quality of courses before faculty workload as inhibiting factors [START_REF] Shifter | Faculty participation in asynchronous learning networks: A case study of motivating and inhibiting factors[END_REF]. Interestingly both these faculty rated their enthusiasm for the technology as moderate, on a Likert scale from very high to very low.

IV. DISCUSSION

The findings summarised above suggest that the forum was not strongly interactive, in spite of the fact that all common recommendations for encouraging debate had been followed. Indeed, a high proportion of the postings were made by the tutor. This is far from a unique phenomenon.

The online CHAT was a strongly tutor-led discussion. From a total of 9831 words and 664 turns over eight analysed seminars the tutor produced 4487 words and 248 turns. This represents 46% of words and 37% of turns. One full-time International Student and two Home students accounted for another 3638 words and 284 turns between them -leaving just 17% of the word total (15% of turns) to the remaining students [START_REF] Pilkington | An Evaluation of Computer Mediated Communication to Support Group Discussion in Continuing Education[END_REF]. The only contextual element that appeared to influence engagement in any important way was the tutor. Comparisons across courses suggest that different pedagogic applications of this technology influenced the link between contribution to discussion areas and learning (Table 4). Although one possible interpretation is that the other boards were more effective in using contributions to foster learning, it is equally feasible and more credible to interpret this result as indicating that only the more able students contributed to the discussion boards on other courses, as they often do in the classroom, whereas a broader range of students contributed on the Biochemistry board. This suggests that the techniques used in the Biochemistry board were relatively effective in encouraging student participation, even though the students were not particularly aware of the influence of these techniques on their contributions (Table 3).

One distinctive feature of the pattern of postings was that students were 'playing the game' of assessment, making the posting that earned them marks but rarely contributing otherwise. The single biggest category of postings, the 'statements' from named students, was almost exclusively comprised of the project descriptions requested by the tutor as a for-credit part of the assessment process. This reinforces the observations of Jones [START_REF] Jones | Evaluating a collaborative online learning environment[END_REF], where assessment led to students consciously engaging in behaviors designed to maximise their performance. It also resembles the finding of Morris and others [START_REF] Morris | Student use of computer-mediated communication in an Open University Level 1 Course: Academic or Social?[END_REF] that "most coursecontent-related conference postings were assignment focused."

The other distinctive feature of this course, identified through a discussion of the role of the tutors and the feedback of the students, was the enthusiasm and expertise of the tutor. This suggests that it may be this personal, affective element of the students' context that fostered engagement. Mason's work supports this observation, reporting that the commitment, passion, involvement and absorption of the tutor in the online discussion is even more import than e-moderating skill in influencing the success of the conference [START_REF] Mason | Moderating educational computer conferences[END_REF]. Similarly, Kerr notes that a lack of adequate leadership is a major factor in the failure of such conferences, since a clear agenda for participants to follow and goals to aim for are needed if anything is to happen [START_REF] Kerr | Electronic leadership: A guide to moderating online conferences[END_REF].

Another important feature, not directly highlighted by the findings, concerns the introduction of this technology. All students involved in this study had already completed one semester of medical education. As found in the very similar context of the study by Morris and others [START_REF] Morris | Student use of computer-mediated communication in an Open University Level 1 Course: Academic or Social?[END_REF], the addition of new media to the course confounds students' expectations, and can lead to low levels of use, particularly if the students' first engagement with this new technology is frustrating [START_REF] Mastrian | Older student perceptions of technology based learning assignments[END_REF].

V. CONCLUSION

The study described in this paper has demonstrated the feasibility of supporting courses in medical education using ALNs. However, more importantly, the study has called into question a number of assumptions that are frequently made about the reasons why such use of ALNs are successful.

The use of assessment to encourage student discourse appears to be only a superficial success. The findings here that students perform to criteria without necessarily engaging in worthwhile dialogue are supported by others [START_REF] Jones | Evaluating a collaborative online learning environment[END_REF]. Thus unless more sophisticated assessment criteria can be developed, it seems likely that giving credit for postings will change behavior without necessarily improving learning. There was even less evidence that the other pedagogic techniques used here benefit learners. As Jones says, "collaboration is shown to be in some sense the problem for networked learning not an outcome of the new technology or its associated pedagogy" (emphasis added) [START_REF] Jones | Do technologies have politics? The new paradigm and pedagogy in networked learning[END_REF].

While many papers draw conclusions about techniques that influence students' engagement, the affective role of the tutor has remained relatively unexamined. This study suggests that whether or not the recommended techniques influence learning, the tutor has an important role to play. Attention to techniques alone is insufficient; tutors are not some confounding variable modifying the effectiveness of particular pedagogic approaches, but may instead be the root cause of engagement in discussions.

Thus, ironically, attention to both technology and pedagogy in studies of this type may be misplaced, or at the least, inadequate. What is required is an increased focus on the affective role of the tutor, in recognition of the realisation in the wider field of research into Higher Education that their enthusiasm stimulates students, communicating a love of the subject, medium and of learning [START_REF] Rowland | Helicobacter pylori in peptic ulcer disease and the impact of computers and information technology in higher education[END_REF].

Table 1 : An overview of the cohort's academic information C. Questionnaire A

 1 questionnaire was distributed to all the students in the class of 2003 after completing Biochemistry, Physiology, Human Anatomy, Lower Extremity Anatomy, and Neuroscience courses in the spring semester of 2000. Total time for administering the questionnaire was 15 minutes. Time is significant since longer questionnaires may be less reliable due to respondent fatigue[START_REF] Wolf | Educational Research, Methodology, and Measurement: An International Handbook[END_REF]. Only Biochemistry, Human Anatomy and Lower Extremity Anatomy courses were supported by distinct asynchronous learning networks; faculty responsible for neuroscience and physiology courses chose not to take advantage of the asynchronous learning opportunity.

	.

Table 2

 2 shows an overview of the 224 messages posted to the discussion forum during the term.

		Postings from the	Postings from	Postings from named
		tutor	anonymous students	students
			'On-topic' postings
	Questions	1	4	14
	Statements	25		60
	Response: answer	12		8
	Response: additional	7		2
	question
	Response: answer and	3		2
	additional question
	Response: statement	43		7
			'Off-topic' postings
	Questions	3		3
	Statements	5	3	1
	Response: answer	1		6
	Response: additional	1		0
	question
	Response: answer and	0		0
	additional question
	Response: statement	4	1	8
	Total	105	8	111

Table 2 : An overview of message postings from the cohort

 2

Table 3 : What students felt was important in influencing their contributions to discussions

 3

Table 4 : Correlations between self-reported postings, understanding and scores

 4

	Bulletin Board	Relationship between reported	Relationship between reported
		posting and understanding	posting and scores
	Biochemistry	Not significant	Not significant
	Lower Extremity Anatomy	Significant	Significant
	Discussion
	Human Anatomy Discussion	Not significant	Significant
	Human Anatomy Mnemonics	Not significant	Not significant

1-tailed, n=60, p<0.05):

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors appreciate the cooperation of the students and faculty of the Department of Basic Medical Sciences at the California College of Podiatric Medicine. We thank Jim Cole for his technical expertise, and thank Jared Remmers, CCPM class of 2003 for his organizational skills and dedication to research at CCPM.