Challenges of Online Cooperation

Challenges of Online Cooperation

Janpha Thadphoothon 

Feedback & Suggestions from Research Participants

During the research briefing stage in Thailand, Some issues had emerged. They were derived from the opinions of some research participants. Following were are some issues that challenged the research. The issues were those that were related to: (1) the access and use of Internet, (2) collaboration, and (3) aim and objectives of the research.

(1) Internet Access and the Use of the Internet

(2) Issues Relate to Collaboration

So far this research has come to realize that collaboration is the key to success. Like any other business or educational enterprises, collaborative research involves different kinds of people, thus it requires a great deal of active cooperation, especially from other collaborators. In this case, the collaborators are classified into three groups --- the administrators, the teachers and the students. At this early stage, the researcher has found that if the administrators and the teachers are cooperative, the students are likely to be cooperative.

The next step to proceed after this was the briefing of prospective participants in Canberra. However, there was particular one issue related to collaboration worth mentioning here: motivation, which will be discussed in details later in this chapter (4.8.1.2).

At this stage it was found that inviting the teachers to participate was not an easy task. In DPU case, of the 7 teachers the researchers had approached, only three of them agreed to join the research project, and only one teacher had carried out the project until the end. The similar situation occurred within the high school.

(3) Issues Related to the Aim of the Research.

The researcher briefed the participants about the aim of the research i.e. to investigate learners’ critical thinking in language learning. Many of them wondered what critical thinking in language learning was. It is not easy to make the participant understand the significance of critical thinking in language learning. The researcher has told the participants that joining the research project “would enhance their critical thinking in language learning”, which has turned out to be quite complex for many of them to make sense of the term. The better way was to describe as concrete as possible. One indicator explained was the extent to which they use English for communication appropriately. They were informed that working together would make them learn from each other. Collaborating with students from other institutes would enable them to learn and offer them ample opportunity to use the language. The context of learning, the researcher explained, would enable them to use English as a tool to deal with real problems e.g. presenting the traffic problems in their neighborhood. They would have a chance to seek advice from others or share their opinion. In addition, Collaborating with the teacher participants is very helpful because they can help explain the significance of the research in ways and language that are easier to understand, and that motivate the students.

Below are examples of what the students have said:

I think learning English on the Internet is good because we can get any information from Internet.

Because my English is not good, when I read a writing from internet is difficult for me. So if my English is well. I think learning English on the Internet is more interesting for me.

[Student A, Case 2]

In my opinion I think using Internet is very good for learning English, because you have to using English and doing on Internet. Moreover, doing powerpoint, surf the Internet and photo. Using Internet which can doing more different and difficulty work and for other students.

[Student B, Case 2]

Based on the above written feedback, it is clear that the students have positive attitudes towards CMCL. The purport of their feedback was clear.

This is what my DPU collaborator has to say about the research project: [February 2004]

The online-project is quite a challenging thing for students to learn English. From the study at DPU, all groups (5) seemed to start the projects with doubt. They learned to operate the computer system, which they had never done before. They tried to get necessary help from staff in SALLC (Self-Access Language Learning Centre) In DPU (Dhurakijpundit University) or even an instructor, or contact the researcher, Aj Janpha Thadphoothon, in Australia. They wrote in English and sent e-mails to ask for what they needed. Finally they did their projects successfully.

They worked in groups, but only some students, usually the owners of the groups, answered or made comments on the web-board, and that’s why we can see the same names appeared on the web board. The topics they made were clear. They language they used is quite understandable and easy to read. They can give examples to support the point being made, especially in Group 3, the pictures and examples they gave were very specific and dealt with the significant factors. They sticked to the issue. It would be more interesting if they did more research or made effort to response to the statements discussed online. The opinions they gave were only from their points of view. But it was true according to their everyday lives in Thailand.

Not every student got benefits from the project. But they read English articles from newspapers and other websites and summarized it. They tried hard to accomplish the work they had been assigned.  Moreover, they had learnt to use English in realistic ways.

6.3.2. Motivation

It is the fact that participants have different levels of motivation and their reasons for joining the project may be diverse. This research revealed that inadequate support contributes significantly to the students’ low motivation. Active support functioned as a source of motivation. Moreover, motivation has a lot to do with ability, and ability to perform has a lot to do with help and support, including encouragement, from others, especially their teachers.

It was not easy to sustain the participants’ motivation. At the initial stage, it seemed obvious to the research that Yothinburana School (Case 4) was highly motivated. Organization in terms of collaboration and operation was fine. The head of the Research and Development Department had actively joined the project. The team of collaboration was set up. There were a lot of students who were keen to be part of this research project. However, their motivation seemed to fade away as time went by. The result was the case that connected with a science project. Case 4 basically had emerged from the process of collaboration.

Everybody is motivated. But what matters are the direction and the consistency of such motivation. Some students are motivated not to study hard, but some are. Motivation is indeed a complicate issue, underpinning the levels of participation. What makes the students actively engaged in the activities? The obvious answer would be the scores. This is an external factor. However, as showed in many examples, an internal factor exists; many student participants did really want to learn English. Some students, with supports from teachers, continue their work, regardless of the incentives from scores.