The paper first reviews the authors" recent comparative studies of existing online learning environments and makes the case that no current commercially available system effectively supports intensive collaborative and creative discussion in a way that may compete with facilitated small-group methodologies such as for example the Harvard case study method. Second, it reviews earlier work, spanning some thirty years, on a methodology named Structural Communication that achieved some success in automating and individualizing such methodologies. Then, the paper describes a methodology that combines some aspects of Structural Communication with interactive Web-based discussion to create an effective and efficient alternative to classroom-based case study discussions. Finally, research is presented suggesting that this methodology, apart from being efficient and multipliable, may also be more effective than the classroom-based case study method for promoting creative ideas.

KEYWORDS: Case-Study method; Collaborative learning; Criativity; Structural Communication; Web-based learning

Resumo

Em primeiro lugar apresentamos um resumo de pesquisas comparativas de diversos ambientes de aprendizagem "online" disponíveis no mercado, recentemente concluídas pelo autor e seus colaboradores na Syracuse University. Uma das nossas conclusões é que nenhum dos sistemas comercialmente disponíveis oferece ambientes capazes de, efetivamente, concorrer com o ensino presencial dirigido por um facilitador experiente, quando se trata de desenvolver discussões intensivas, colaborativas e criativas, como ocorre, por exemplo, no método de estudo de casos administrativos da Harvard. Em segundo lugar, apresentamos os resultados de trinta anos de pesquisa e desenvolvimento de uma metodologia de design de materiais didáticos, denominada "Structural Communication" (comunicação estrutural), que se mostrou capaz de automatizar e individualizar estas metodologias. Em seguida descrevemos uma metodologia que combina alguns dos aspectos da "Structural Communication" com discussão interativa no ambiente Web, para criar uma alternativa eficiente e eficaz ao estudo presencial de casos. Finalmente, apresentamos os resultados dos nossas últimos estudos os quais sugerem que esta metodologia, além de ser eficiente e multiplicável, pode ser até mais eficaz para promoção de idéias criativas do que o estudo presencial.

Introduction: Key Issues in Use of CMC in Higher Education

The variety of Internet-based synchronous and asynchronous communication systems keeps growing. In addition to the already well known forms of asynchronous Computer-Mediated-Communication (CMC) systems, such as email, listserv and threaded discussion lists, we now use a variety of new synchronous communication alternatives, such as electronic whiteboards, Internet Relay Chat, Web-based audio and video conferencing and a growing variety of "groupware" packages. As the power of the Internet grows, so does the complexity of the material posted. Ever more ambitious examples of interactive multimedia are launched on the Web every day. A number of novel research questions and issues arise in relation to the design and use of these new systems.

Much existing research is related to earlier forms of text-based CBT. Some of these results may be equally valid within the context of multimedia distance education/training systems. However, we may expect many new issues and questions to emerge as these broad band multimedia, multimodal communication systems link both people and remote databases into one seamless information and communication environment. One recurrent problem is that we hop from one recently-emerged technology to another currently-emerging technology that promises some new potential, without ever learning to fully exploit the potential of the old. It is a sobering thought that in all the centuries since the Gutemberg print technology facilitated the mass dissemination of text, we are still struggling with the issues of mediocre textbooks, instructional manuals that fail to instruct and communications (including on-line texts and hypertexts) that just do not communicate.

In addition to the communication-technology and instructional design variables, another aspect to consider for improvement of existing on-line learning environments is the promotion of effective "conversational" interaction between groups of students (and instructors) engaged on a joint project. There is a growing need for the implementation of learning exercises that prepare students for the new profession of "Knowledge Work". These exercises should allow students to work creatively, collaboratively and at a distance on complex, leading-edge problems that impact their life and work. Teaching methods such as seminars or case studies are traditionally employed for developing creative thinking skills through collaborative effort. They are typically implemented in small or medium sized groups, led by skilled and experienced "facilitators". The success of these methods depends much on the facilitators and the skill with which they perform their roles: focus the discussion; guide the approaches adopted by the participants; use the natural group dynamics to stimulate interest; promote and support participation and deep involvement by all; and pull together what has been learned in the final debriefing discussion. Can such participatory discussion methods be effectively orchestrated at a distance? How might this be done? And, most importantly, how might we do it so as to create practical and sustainable WBT systems that will survive the test of time as the initial enthusiastic "early adopters" move on to other projects and their place is taken by the rank and file of the teaching/training profession?

There are also other pressures, both organizational and philosophical, that are increasing the amount of autonomy, self-direction and responsibility that learners have in respect of their own education and development. Given the increasingly competitive nature of business in the international marketplace and the critical importance that access to and use of up-to-date information and methods plays in a company"s competitiveness, it is not surprising that the concept of human resources development as "self-development" is taking root. This concept sees keeping up-to-date and employable as the responsibility of every employee. The employer"s responsibility is to make this possible, by helping to identify the needs of the individual and by facilitating access to the resources necessary to satisfy those needs. This will ever less frequently call for lengthy courses organized either within the company or by outside providers, but will instead make much more use of networking, access to external databases and electronic libraries, small specialist group tele-training and self-instruction in all its forms (Eurich, 1990).

An integrated research agenda

The research focus adopted by the authors is on the effective implementation of group discussion, or "conversational", methodologies on electronic telecommunications networks. This focus is particularly important, as we know much less about how to converse effectively on electronic networks, than we do about electronic self-instruction. There is a long history and fairly developed technology of the design, development and delivery-at-a-distance of self-study materials. There is much less known about the running of effective group-discussion sessions at a distance (Chang, 1994).

In a recent study reported elsewhere (Villalba and Romiszowski, 1999) the authors performed a comparative analysis of typical on-line learning environments currently used in higher education and the typical ways in which these environments are used to implement collaborative group learning activities. The findings indicated that few currently implemented on-line courses actually include a strong emphasis on collaborative small-group learning and, when such activities are implemented, this is generally as a relatively unstructured on-line group discussion, using either synchronous "chat" sessions or, more frequently, asynchronous email driven discussion lists. There is little if any research, however, indicating that such environments are conducive to in-depth reflective discussions of the type required to develop critical and creative thinking skills. And there are some studies (e.g. Romiszowski and DeHaas, 1989, Romiszowski and Chang, 1994) that suggest they are singularly ineffective in this respect. As a means of verifying these suggestions, the authors selected one of the previously evaluated on-line learning environments, Aulanet, for further in-depth study.

Aulanet is a web based instruction environment, developed in Brazil at the Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (Lucena et.al. 1998) which is also available in an English language version. It was selected as it offered a wider variety of on-line discussion environments than most other currently available systems. In addition to the regular e-mail, both threaded and unthreaded asynchronous discussion environments and text-based synchronous "chat" rooms, options are available for audio, audio-graphic and full video-conference sessions in small or large groups. In addition, the creators of Aulanet claim the system is based on or influenced by contemporary theories of cognition and constructivism. The present authors have observed and analyzed the use of Aulanet as a delivery system for four courses running through the spring and the fall semesters of 1999. These courses form part of a graduate (Masters and Doctorate) program in Educational Technology in a leading North American Research University. The study involved both the observation of student use of different collaborative learning environments provided within Aulanet and the analysis of student questionnaire responses and user-evaluations administered during the course of the 1999 academic year.

In that study the students made some quite significant suggestions for enhancement of the learning environment. A major observation is concerned with the structure of facilities for constructive educational "conversations". The many and various components of Aulanet that permit both synchronous and asynchronous student/teacher and student/student interaction are seen to be no different from the facilities that exist in many other online learning packages currently on the market. Both faculty and students have come across limitations in the available group communication facilities that limit what they can implement in the way of "creative group work at a distance".

In the present study we are seeking ways around these limitations. In order to perform this research we have developed a web based automated case discussion system. To do this, we turned to a methodology called Structural Communication, originally developed in the United Kingdom in the late 60"s and early 70"s as a methodology for writing and presenting interactive print-based exercises. An adaptation of this methodology had shown itself to be effective for automating and individualizing small-group learning methods such as the Harvard Business Case methodology (Hodgson et. al. 1971). Later studies demonstrated the effectiveness of the methodology in reducing the amount of human facilitator or monitor interaction necessary in order to lead the exercise to a satisfactory conclusion (Romiszowski, 1990; Romiszowski & Chang, 1992; Chang, 1994).

Structural Communication is an instructional approach that provides a simulated dialogue between an author of instructional materials and the students. It has been called "an interactive technique for communicating understanding" (Egan, 1976). Understanding is "inferred if a student shows the ability to use knowledge appropriately in different contexts, and to organize knowledge elements in accordance with specified organizing principles" (Egan, 1972, p. 66). The technique was designed to encourage creative thinking in learners, allowing them to develop an understanding of a topic, not simply to memorize facts. Furthermore, Structural Communication was designed to promote learning for social action. Hodgson, in line with many current constructivists, viewed the social contexts of the learning activity to be critical for the transfer of learning to practical situations (Egan, 1976). The distinctions between the learning of knowledge and the learning for social action are evident in the actual components Hodgson designed into the Structural Communication technique. The typical components of a Structural Communication unit are described below.

Intention .
The opening statement, which defines what is to be studied, provides an overview, possibly an "advance organizer", and sometimes a rationale. It is used to provide a context for the content of the study unit.

Presentation
The material, experience, exercise, case study, etc. which supplies the essential facts and concepts of the domain being studied. This may be an existing text, a video, a case study, a simulation, or real-life experience, depending on the overall strategy of the exercise. This could also be any sort of computer-based instruction, including simulations.

Investigation
A set of problems for solution, which are designed to present the "intellectual challenge" that is an essential part of the Structural Communication methodology. These problems are interrelated and are open-ended to allow multiple responses and viewpoints. The purpose of the investigation section is for the learner to interact with the subject matter.

Response Matrix
A randomized array of items which summarize key parts, concepts or principles from the knowledge base that is being used and studied in the exercise. Often it resembles a "key point summary" of the Presentation. The student composes a response (outlines an essay) by selecting any number of these items as a "best" response to a given problem.

Discussion
The Discussion has two parts: a Discussion Guide and a set of Discussion Comments. The Guide is a set of if-then rules, which test the student"s response for omission or inclusion of certain significant items, or combinations of items. The Comments are constructive statements that discuss in depth the rationale for including or excluding certain items.

Viewpoints
An outline of the author"s, and other alternative viewpoints; this may review some aspects stated in the Intention, make explicit some biases or standpoints held dear by the author, draw attention to other views in the literature, etc. Ideally, the viewpoint section plays a final, interactive role between author and learner.

A.n additional aspect of the Structural Communication study unit is the assessment of the learner"s responses to the questions posed by the study unit. Hodgson developed a numerical measure called the coherence index. According to Egan (1976), the coherence index is an objective measure of how well the student organizes knowledge about the specific topic in the study unit. However, the constructivist may reject this interpretation, since it implies a correct set of responses based upon the ideal organization and analysis of the presented data. Constructivists are more likely to view the coherence index as an objective measure of the degree of agreement of the student with the author of the Structural Communication unit. They may well be more interested in measures of divergence of viewpoints rather than convergence on a uniform, or coherent, viewpoint on the issues being discussed.

A Revised Structural Communication Methodology

The original SC methodology was redesigned in order to create a somewhat more "constructivist" and collaborative learning environment. Some of the most important features of the SC method, for example individualized learning of basic content and access to expert opinions, were maintained. However, the revised form provides open-ended discussion environments for students to share, argue, persuade, and negotiate their perspectives on the expert"s feedback comments as well as on their own opinions. In the original method, the planned learning activity ends with reading the expert"s comments. Since the revised method is designed for small group collaborative learning, from this point on, further learning activity occurs collaboratively with group members. After completing their work individually, students browse what each group member did. A summary table tells the group members who selected which items in the response matrix during individual study. With the summary table as a guide, group members can access any item and read the viewpoints and justifications of other group members. They are asked to react to each other"s justifications stating whether they agree or disagree with each other.

As the process continues, the pool of the students" discussion log grows. The software is designed to save every justification and discussion statement that students make, and to enable students to browse those reactions and opinions in a cumulative mode as the process continues. While they are performing these activities, the nature of their interaction may vary along several dimensions, which are under the control of the software. For example, they may, or may not, access expert"s feedback comments to inform them on "what the experts say". Similarly, they may have to construct their opinions and justifications in their own words, or merely select them from a long list. Four different versions of the revised Structural Communication software were developed for experimental purposes. These vary along "simple-to-complex interaction structures" and "more or less constructivist philosophy" dimensions (Chang, 1994).

Practical Conclusions and their Implications for Conversational WBT

Several conclusions were drawn from this study. One practical conclusion was that the discussion environments based more closely on the original SC exercise model, offer an appropriate environment for intensive small group conversational interaction via CMC networks, even if these seem to be less in line with currently popular philosophical positions. However, the environments must support the discussion process in an effective and efficient manner. This implies, among other things, ensuring that the discussion process is motivating and not over-taxing in terms of workload. The researchers found no trace of the supposed "perils" of limiting the creative and critical thinking of the discussion participants by exposing them to "expert" viewpoints. The more tightly structured SC environments produced more frequent creative insights than the supposedly more "constructivist" environments.

As regards student motivation, there is little doubt that exercises organized in the form of Structural Communication are most effective. The several hundred students who participated in the above-mentioned 4-treatment study worked voluntarily and without recompense in the form of grade points throughout a whole semester with very low dropout rates. The students in earlier studies showed similar levels of motivation. This finding is important in the context of conversational CMC-type WBT in that the study materials placed in a publicly "open" WBT environment will survive and prosper, or alternatively wither and die, as a function of their ability to attract voluntary participation from a significant number of WWW navigators.

It may well be that the reasons for the high levels of motivation encountered in these studies are not entirely and uniquely a consequence of the SC format. As mentioned before, the quality of design of the exercises themselves is probably a most critical factor. In Khan"s recent collection of essays on Web-Based Instruction (Khan, 1997), two chapters are devoted to issues of motivation in WBI (Cornell & Martin, 1997; Duchastel, 1997). Both chapters review several well-known approaches and models for the design of motivational learning materials, such as ARCS (Keller, 1983). However, Structural Communication"s unique mechanism of the response matrix is an approach that has been largely overlooked. The response matrix allows for easy and rapid responding to complex multi-faceted problems, at the same time allowing one to explore one"s own and each others" cognitive structures in some detail. This is the inherent attractiveness of the methodology to the interested and reflective student.

We should not leave the question of motivation without also considering the motivation of the instructor or discussion facilitator. Cornell & Martin (1997) address the question of instructor motivation in Web-based learning. The authors mention seven reasons for lack of instructor motivation (as compared to twelve for student motivation) and, interestingly, this list of seven reasons does not include the avoidance of extra workload. However, experience and research suggest that CMC-delivered courses almost always involve significantly more instructor time than conventional courses. We therefore feel that one should add this eighth reason to the list. Furthermore, we believe that Structural Communication offers, at least in part, a solution to this eighth reason.

In discussions organized within a SC-based CMC environment, the problem of instructor overload is much reduced. The automatic generation of extensive and constructive feedback to students on the basis of the pattern of responses they select from the response matrix acts like a first-round live reaction from the instructor to specific aspects of the students" overall response. In practice, these automatically generated feedback messages satisfy well over 70% of the students" needs for clarification or orientation. The remaining 20% to 30% of feedback interactions generate second-round student responses in the form of electronic messages that pose supplementary questions or comments, usually at a deeper and more reflective level of discourse. The effects of this on the motivation of the instructor are twofold. First, the overall workload of responding to students (measured in terms of the number of messages to compose) is reduced by some 70%. Second, the messages to be responded are on issues that are often more interesting and always relatively original and non-repetitive.

Having touched on the issue of workload as it relates to the instructor/facilitator, we may mention our experience with the SC response-matrix mechanism as a device for the reduction of student workload. In selecting a subset of response elements from the universe represented by the items in the response-matrix, the student is in effect composing a complex, structured response to the problem under analysis. This is analogous to the preparation of an outline for an essay or live seminar presentation. The intellectual effort necessary to evaluate the relevance of each item of the matrix to the problem being studied is equivalent to that expended in planning an essay or presentation. However, the time and effort involved in writing an essay or preparing and delivering a presentation are saved.

We have also observed that students spend more time, more productively, in the intellectual restructuring of ideas and the creation of their own knowledge structures than is often the case in conventional instruction. To be sure, students do restructure their ideas when they engage in free, unstructured, small-group discussion with their peers and teachers, but not with the frequency and depth of insight that seems to be generated in the SC environment. And, in our view, the relatively unstructured discussion lists that abound in current WBT environments, even the popular "threaded" discussions, are less effective in promoting creative idea-generation. Furthermore, they are more wasteful of student time than both the SC environment and the conventional small-group seminar presentation, in that every single contribution must be produced as an original typed message.

In conclusion, it is not our argument to eliminate written communication from the ideal WBT environment. There are strong learning benefits to "putting pen to paper" (or fingers to keyboard). As Albert Einstein replied when asked what he thought of a novel scientific issue: "I do not know what I think until I have written it down". However, as in real life time is always limited, why not use it most efficiently? In the SC-based form of WBT environment, the student is saved the effort of writing out surface-level arguments that mainly serve to "get the ball rolling" by acting as stimuli for comments from instructor/facilitators or peers. The discussion is set in motion by means of the response matrix. The writing of "what I think" then does occur at the second and subsequent rounds of in-depth discussion. We close by stressing the importance of implementing effective, efficient and multipliable small group collaborative learning environments online. Otherwise, due to the difficulties and costs of arranging sufficient opportunities for facilitated small-group collaborative learning by conventional means, tomorrow"s educational systems will offer "less and less of what learners need more and more".

.References .