E-MODERATING PERSONAS
Maria D. Avgerinou, Carina Andersson · Quarterly review of distance education · 2007
Web-based distance education has become a “real” teaching alternative which has instigated more research (The Swedish Net University Agency, 2005) particularly in the past decade (Avgerinou, Griffin, & Pettersson, 2005; Andersson, Avgerinou, Griffin, Muffoletto, & Pettersson, 2004; Pettersson & Ander-sson van Limbeek, 2002; Pettersson, Svensson, & Wærn, 2002). This research has commonly focused on four major perspectives: information-technology, course management systems (including course communication tools), information design, and online learning.Not surprisingly, there are many, significant differences between face-to-face (f2f), and Web-based teaching. In a traditional teaching context, communication is implemented synchronously insofar as teacher and students are able to communicate instantly, and without delay. Besides the direct and instantaneous verbal exchanges, synchronous communication also transpires through visual signs and body language.Conversely, if we accept that online teaching (e-moderating) occurs via the Internet and electronic multimedia, including the use of language (both oral and written), a common way of teaching in this context is through a dynamic interaction among participants, yet without the physical presence of the teacher or students. What happens then to the teacher’s “identity” and role when s/he is no longer physically present as in a traditional classroom? How is it established? Perhaps most importantly, how is it perceived by both the students, and the teacher him/her-self?Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer (2001) describe a model which concerns the teaching and learning transaction via computer conferencing. The model presents three core components of importance for learning in an online instructional community, namely, (1) cognitive presence, (2) teaching presence, and (3) social presence. Teaching presence refers to “designing and managing learning sequences, providing subject matter expertise, and facilitating active learning” (Rourke et al., 2001, ¶ 2).Similarly, four major roles of the online instructor have been identified by Bonk, Kinley, Hara, and Paz-Dennen (2001)—pedagogical, social, managerial, and technological. The pedagogical aspect is manifested through the instructors assuming the role of facilitator or moderator, such as, ask questions, probe responses, encourage student knowledge building and linking, summarize or weave dis-cussion, and support and direct interactive dis-cussion, design a variety of educational experiences, and provide feedback, referring to outside resources and experts in the field. The social aspect is manifested through the instruc-tor’s creating a friendly and nurturing environment or community feel, exhibiting a generally positive tone, fostering some humor, displaying empathy and interpersonal outreach (e.g. including welcoming statements, invitation, and apologies), and personalizing with discussion of one’s own online experiences. The managerial aspect is manifested through the instructor’s coordinating assignments (e.g. explain assignments, set plans for receipt of assignments, assign partners and groups, set due dates and extensions for assignments), managing online discussion forums (e.g. set pace, focus, agenda), and handle overall course structuring (e.g. organize meeting times and places, set office hours, clarify distributions). The technological aspect is manifested through the instructor’s assisting with user technology and system issues, diagnosing and clarifying problems encountered, notifying when a server is down, and explaining limitations.This two-phase, comparative research study was conducted by two university instructors whose research agenda concentrates on teacher perceptions of own qualities, roles, and functions in online instructional environments.Phase 1 of our research compared and dis-cussed the emerging instructional styles of par-ticipating online teachers (e-moderators), in Sweden, and the United States (Andersson & Avgerinou, 2006). Primary research questions concerned how teachers experience online teaching versus f2f teaching, as well as how the academic environment affects the teacher experience. The framework of this comparative research was defined by the fact that all U.S. teachers were attached to a university just beginning to experiment with online and blended delivery; whereas online and blended curricula and delivery were already well established in the Swedish teachers’ academic context.Secondary questions included the differ-ences and similarities of online versus traditional teaching, and how participating teachers come to recognize and deal with them. What kind of teaching styles are used in Web-based learning? What information design tools may a teacher deploy toward the creation of their “identity,” and how does s/he establish their presence online? What are online teachers’ professional development needs, and to what extent are they covered by their respective institutions? Finally, what are their goals and desires toward a pedagogically sound, and effective implementation of online learning?If e-moderating is indeed a new type of instruction (Maor, 2003), then there is a pressing need to revisit the role of the online instructor. Therefore, in light of Phase 1 research results, the second phase (Phase 2) of this study has concentrated on using the identified perceptions, behaviors, motivations, and aspirations of the participating e-moderators with the view to creating composite, albeit fictional online instruction archetypes (personas). In our attempt to do justice to the analysis and presentation of Phase 1 data, we set out to experiment with the transfer and applicability to our respective blended and online teaching contexts, of the persona research method typically deployed by usability and interaction design. Consequently, our questions have focused on whether and to what extent this methodological innovation would produce valid and reliable results from a research design perspective; as well as, whether we would gain a better, more comprehensive and more realistic insight into e-moderating, as a result of looking at our existing data through the novel lens of the persona method. An implication of the latter referred to whether our e-moderating personas could also be in some way meaningful to all those involved in the various aspects of online teaching.A predominantly qualitative design was adopted for this research which employed dif-ferent data collection techniques including sur-veys, semistructured individual interviews conducted f2f, and focus groups interviews conducted online. Both researchers were involved in data collection and analysis. Although we looked to address specific questions during the individual and focus group interviews, there was still opportunity for par-ticipants’ personal input which could be diverting from the original set of questions. The respondents (N = 10) were teachers currently teaching or having recently taught through Web-based environments in blended/ hybrid (U.S.) and completely online (Sweden) formats in our respective universities/countries. Analysis of the data employed the content analysis technique for all aforementioned instruments.The use of multiple data sources, multiple subjects, and two researchers was necessary towards acquiring a fuller, and richer under-standing of our data. From a methodological standpoint, we concur with Bogdan and Biklen-Knopp (2007) when they write: “describe what you did rather than using the imprecise and abstract term triangulation” (p. 116).Data analysis based on within and across group comparisons (Andersson & Avgerinou, 2006) have indicated some common threads which are completely aligned with the four major roles of the online instructor as identified by Bonk et al. (2001).All participating teachers exhibit engagement with online teaching in all four identified roles. What is more impressive, regardless of their academic background and current instructional context, they not only view emoderating as a new type of instruction; but they also perceive themselves as constructivist pedagogues whose purpose is to design and provide the type of nurturing and friendly learning environments that are mostly conducive to student creating their own interpretations of reality, and thus becoming responsible for their own lifelong learning. Some of our teachers share similar views on the Socratic philosophy and its online applications. These notions, combined with the online teacher training all of them received prior to their involvement in online teaching, may perhaps explain their self-perception of their online teaching performance from a multitude of perspectives—the most significant one being those teachers’ constant and fearless quest to serve their students’ needs in the best possible way while updating and adapting their own practice to the rapidly changing demands of our times. As Good (2001) states, “the e-learning pedagogue is a hybrid creature with multiple skills and a passion for learning!” (p. 173).From a qualitative research methodological standpoint, typically it has been challenging to present qualitative data so that it truly reflects meanings, behaviors, and intentions of research participants. In our case, it was speculated that qualitative data could be more realistically and comprehensively reflected via personas, a composite, albeit fictional archetype deployed by information architects and interaction designers (Kuniavsky, 2003). Therefore, in our attempt to do justice to the analysis but also the presentation of Phase 1 data, we set out to introduce the persona research method to a new territory, namely our respective blended and online learning contexts, and experiment with the mechanics of its transfer and overall applicability.Taking into consideration Phase 1 results, Phase 2 of our research has focused on the development of e-moderating personas repre-senting identified behaviors, motivations, and aspirations of real participants with the addi-tional goal to better understand online teaching styles, thus assisting the professional develop-ment of aspiring and existing online teachers. An extension of this goal is to give aspiring e-moderators a realistic insight into the online instructor’s role(s), but also to assist existing e-moderators better understand and further develop their online teaching style. Finally, the results of this study could benefit all those involved in supporting online teaching initiatives—such as instructional designers, course management system designers, technical staff, professional development units, administrators, and so forth—trying to effectively match and align teaching and learning needs with corresponding services and resources.Consequently, our questions have focused on whether and to what extent this method-ological innovation would produce valid and reliable results from a research design perspec-tive; as well as, whether we would gain a better, more comprehensive and more realistic insight into e-moderating, as a result of looking at our existing data through the novel lens of the persona method. An implication of the latter referred to whether our e-moderating personas could also be in some way meaningful to all those involved in the various aspects of online teaching.User representations are not new to product design, marketing and branding. Over the years, information architects, interaction and product identity designers have developed various models of user representation in order to base their product development on well informed decisions. Pruit and Adlin indicate (2006) that in marketing and branding models have been developed by Sissors (1966), Upshaw (1995), Weinstein (1998), Mello (2002), and Moore (2002).In the area of usability and interaction design, scenarios have been deployed toward the organization, justification, and communication of ideas. More recently, the use of scenarios has been extended to assist in system design, product development, as well as research in human/computer interaction. Nonetheless, Carroll (1995) argues that scenarios instead of focusing on users and their actual opinions, they tend to provide assumptions about them. This is apparently the reason why user-focused models such as user profiles (Hackos & Redish, 1998), user roles (Constantine & Lockwood, 2001), as well as user archetypes (Mikkelson & Lee, 2000) have been adopted by most usability specialists.In The Inmates are Running the Asylum, Alan Cooper (1999) asserts that a focus on technology is fostered in whatever we do, when we should instead be focusing on people. Therefore he offers a user model (personas) in order to address this problem, and refocus product design and development on people and their needs. Originally surfacing in 1995, Cooper’s personas were used in a collaborative fashion by design teams to communicate different user perspectives regarding complex design solutions for consulting projects.According to Cooper (1999, p. 24), “personas are not real people ... they are hypothetical archetypes of actual users . defined with significant rigor and precision.” Personas can be conceptualized as imaginary people that we create as stand-ins for concrete target users of design products. When working with personas it is important to be aware of the distinction between stereotypes and archetypes. Each of these concepts stems from a specific theoretical context. Used mostly in social psychology, stereotypes can be defined as a simplified, often generalized form of idea (National Encyklopedin, 2006a). It may be a pre-conceived idea of the characteristics typifying a or a may be as an based on such a 2006a). The of archetype is based on and in our Personas are the the we In a persona the between the and the environment (National Encyklopedin, term Cooper’s that there is no way to that the personas truly are of actual users the product is and personas are better as real people the design Cooper’s on personas significant rigor and that the of personas in their to provide specific about important in Cooper’s personal model is that the representation from user in to behaviors, Personas are not are as a of the research and are defined by their personas more and personal are are a in product and interaction design, for various designers do not design with the user in they tend to focus more on and their own users are and It an of and to their behaviors, needs, and Finally, those the user and research are not the As a user profiles may not be as of the actual user needs, and (2006) as to the reason why personas that when a to how in a new in he a that all of in our attempt to how may to what we may or is based on three user personas have been used in various to user data into and Adlin this and Adlin p. that persona the of information about users through and a when about the people using the personas to from and a persona is on while also into consideration identified target and the persona to address such questions as what different of people use a how their what of and of need to be roles, and have been identified for the persona qualitative data collection This data is through interviews, namely a of and techniques & The users and questions that focus on what user behaviors, and how they to their of data collection may user interviews outside of their use information about users by subject focus groups and of data collection and analysis are the of persona with a for The specific about and professional and personal needs and technical as well as a personal in order to persona and development of a archetype a real and a is also on the and of research data, one to two personas are whereas personas may also our Phase 2 research design, we used the data already and during Phase Each of was responsible for the set of data that we were at creating two personas, one for the and one for the Swedish participants did not being able to personas due to the of research the persona as with the of into consideration emerging and in participants as those to various aspects of online teaching, our of persona was based on the and personal technological current professional development desires and two e-moderating personas on the of the teachers in blended while the teachers responsible for online Both personas are in 1 and to the of this the of in this the of participants, as well as the of in it is best to these personas as or also be of Cooper’s (1999) that it is to how our personas are we them in As in this a major of the current study referred to the transfer and applicability to a new our respective blended and online teaching a research method typically deployed by usability and interaction design. that analysis and presentation of qualitative data typically into the of a that truly reflects and intentions of research participants, we for employed by to this we for persona in an attempt to present and organize our qualitative data in yet and comprehensive a methodological and the aforementioned study we were particularly to gain insight into the of the persona method toward a more realistic of the online teacher’s roles and needs. In when personas for interactive solutions one and personas that are and defined by or skills & 2003). In this and were developed as models that online teachers’ perceptions, behaviors, needs and goals in to their teaching roles and perceived our was a rather due to the fact that we already identified emerging and from our Phase 1 consideration to only those that while our data they would still it This was by the of persona that persona truly for data presentation in a form so that the is able to gain a view of the data. form a and of a It presents and to that our qualitative data in form has not only in the most but also and to the verbal information we were able to in our data that were not It is also that while persona was in more than we the of the data in an or generalized to the theoretical that personas are archetypes and not stereotypes that are out of the when working with qualitative data at such a of as in the of personal Finally, and perhaps most importantly, persona to aware and thus more on our teachers’ and on our own and in some all four e-moderating roles identified by Bonk et al. Although both are particularly concerned with the pedagogical aspect of their they assign different to the the importance to managerial and technical roles, the social role in the second major focus is technical by the managerial, and by the social is also in their of those roles. Both that to be effective online pedagogues they need to be able to set online provide responses, group and feedback, support and student needs, as well as for they do not in social aspect of their role is mostly manifested through the online that they which are similar in that they both introduce and for synchronous online are when for they are not of managerial aspect is more to current problems that those being of effective and own of online group management is also a for which is also to for toward online course the of effective and technical support among current but in he the of online and its for student latter also a with technical being only in online technical skills use of course management he that it may be for online teachers to be to just one of those systems as this may their pedagogical about instructional design technical role is manifested through of in using the of but also through to be to more applications. is concerned about the fact that some of students do not have which may not only their but also their of how they should online both of them in their online teaching they still have specific professional development needs and needs more to the as well as pedagogical aspects of online teaching, while would if by with experience than in the area of blended learning. of online of online group as well as professional development and better needs and desires focus on toward online course development, as well as support from teams of university that would provide and pedagogical and personal mostly their and with their individual set of can explain most of the similarities and differences regarding their aforementioned e-moderating The blended teaching context does not create major problems on the technical for as are not on the course management being completely online do the technical aspect on for more than one online synchronous and online is in teaching agenda due to their importance in teacher education at the development of the this is not the for whose subject area is management stems from teaching between the f2f and the online and yet is of the blended due to the f2f interaction it In case, the can be by the fact that he to online to not only but also to to students better and thus at a It is due to of the between teacher and students also fostered by the fact that students online as they can in f2f as well as the and of the online environment that he is so of online teaching. It is to that university is only beginning to experiment with online while is well established in the online teaching they for their own better which would in more and effective Finally, the social aspect of their role may in their but in it is to online learning while that at the has the and of f2f interaction. building online is also he that for this to or of technical or managerial problems should online training experiences, but and their constructivist teaching can for e-moderating as a teaching in its own and themselves as online that from just knowledge to students. This also why they to to the of teaching is based on Socratic the students to in meaningful and their own and in further this methodological innovation using our study as their should the need for further of our persona through interviews, as well as of a of teachers in both blended and online goals were to give aspiring e-moderators a realistic insight into the online instructor’s role(s), but also to assist existing e-moderators better understand and further develop their online teaching style. also that the results of this study would benefit all those involved in supporting online teaching initiatives—such as instructional designers, course management system designers, technical staff, professional development units, administrators, and so forth—trying to effectively match and align teaching and learning needs with corresponding services and It is our that the aforementioned groups into the that persona toward the of what is important to online how they their teaching as well as what concerns and needs they tend to In that case, as indeed was the for our personas can be employed as a and a discussion for design and while at the assist those teams better and supporting online teaching having their and