Importantly, the data used in this paper is current and the media is low-tech and accessible. This paper is not about the hardware and software of technology. Rather, it is about a teacher educator’s struggle to make sense of online pedagogy at a time when academics seem to be badgered to take their courses online.

This paper draws on data from the following projects:

(a) My involvement in the development and teaching of the ‘Education Studies Major Online Project’ for the last three years. I have been teaching undergraduate students doing their first year education studies program with the option of:

• Not attending university-based lectures or tutorials and doing all their work online;
• Attending face-to-face lectures and tutorials and
• A mixture of face-to-face and online.

(b) The Research in Computers in Education (RICE) group, 1995-2000 which involved primary, secondary and tertiary teachers exploring online learning and teaching in their practice.

(c) The Good Learning on the World Wide Web (GLOW) Project with a secondary college in which undergraduate teacher education students tutor year 9/10 students from a secondary college.

(d) Two Masters in Education units with particular reference to the compulsory online discussion component over the same time period.

(e) A new Faculty Research Group project entitled ‘The social and pedagogical implications of new learning technologies for learners and teachers’.

Academics don’t seem to have an option. We are told that learning environments must be created where the student is immersed in thoughtful interaction facilitated by access to ‘mindtools’ such as databases, hypermedia, and expert systems (Cooper, 1993). It is this premise upon which this paper is constructed.

This premise is illustrated in the literature more widely. For instance, Brabazon (2000) draws attention to the Australian Government's strategic framework for the information economy (1998) which frames the on-line environment as the social panacea to the now cliched tyranny of distance. Although education is mentioned throughout, this official document focuses on the Internet's impact on students, rather than teachers. Computer-mediated education has become an expectation of the contemporary pedagogical environment. Put bluntly, ‘the message is simple: we now have the technology to inform, entertain and educate. Miss it and you, your family and your school will be left behind’ (Brabazon, 2000, p.1).

In this way, this paper contends that the hegemonic forces of IT in education are dressed-up to assume a progressivist ideology with a firm warning that others not on the band wagon will miss out. For example, a feature article in the Education Review (2000, p.10) cautions potential dissenters that most cries of protest are generated by academic professors who ‘have been doing the same thing the same way for 20 years’. Quinn, (2000, p.11) reminds us ‘Coming up: the dot.com university’.

From this context I propose that without a space for thought, the assumptions of online education - both stated and hidden - are ignored. In my view the proliferation of digitisation can be overstated. This is exemplified in the studies which have found that inequalities, with regard to race, gender and class (Brabazon, 2000) are reified through internet usage. Moreover, while Vanderbilt (1999, p. 84) reports that students who spend more time on computers performed less well on tests than their peers, other studies have found that computer-based instruction has generated only a small improvement in student learning (Alessi & Trollip 1991:5). Yet my concern is that research projects such as these have been unable to slow the progressivist imperatives that link computers with the future of education.

This discussion of teaching in an electronic environment is framed as an ‘action research project’. I have actively researched my practice with the aim of improving the way I teach and with a view to understanding and working within the electronic environment in what I see as an appropriate way. My research has consisted of planning, action, observation and reflection on my own practice (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1998).

I have recorded observations, made notes on informal interviews with students and colleagues teaching in the same area, had discussions with students and conducted course evaluations.

The lens through which I see my own practice is influenced by the following theorists. Firstly, I agree with Ramsden (1988): ‘The aim of teaching is simple: it is to make student learning possible’. This is true of any learning environment with or without information and communication technologies. The ‘new’ computer based technologies need not send us ‘back to the drawing board’ to discover new theories of learning. The learning theories used well before can still be applied to teaching in the electronic learning environment.

We cannot assume that we know how our students will respond to online learning and teaching simply through our past experience in teaching by analysing the face-to-face version of the course. We need to interview our students about their use of Internet based materials and get their critical responses. We also need to sit with them and go through a pilot version of the course online and note their responses. For example, I have found that students prefer not to scroll through screens of text. Each topic, section or segment of information should be presented in one ‘screen-grab’ on an average sized monitor. The Education Studies Major Online site (http://www.education.deakin.edu.au/eso) is a good example of a teacher education course developed by academics, graphic artists, programmers, editors and web-dwellers working together and developing a course online. However, our individually busy schedules and budgetary constraints have taken an early toll in this development – having developed the course online, we have each returned to our previous professional responsibilities. A course developed for online use is never complete. The multi-skilled development team needs to keep meeting and developing the course. Changes need to be made, text graphics and content needs to be updated and in some cases replaced. An online course needs to be forever refreshed (Boshier et al, 1997).

The question that has been in the foreground of my teaching with my undergraduate teacher education students has been: How can I use the Education Studies Online web site as part of my pedagogy? I divide the two hours of my tutorial time to include one hour in a computer laboratory where the students and I address issues relating to the course using the online facilities. I have found that I cannot take for granted the skills of the students in using the computer. They often need help (from their peers or me) even with using the web browser.

However, one of the challenges we face is in fact to use the online facilities of the Education Studies Online site. The online course needs constant development and redevelopment and the question of how the facility can be used in learning and teaching needs also to be regularly discussed and acted upon through opportunities of professional development.

The Education Studies Online course materials is also a good illustration of how an online course differs from a print-based course. Of course there is a significant difference between the online and print-based version of a course. A print-based course needs to be rewritten to be put online. It is fascinating to be involved at a time when both versions are currently and often concurrently being used. A question worth asking is: Has the pedagogy remained the same for both versions of the course?

Students have made it quite clear that while they like having access to online facilities, they have a preference for the online and face-to-face model of teaching. Even when they are engaged online and have very little face-to-face interaction they like to know that there is a human on the other side of the interaction. I agree with Walker (1997) who identified the question which comes to those who teach online or via email as: ‘Is anybody there?’ remains a reasonable query. As this seems a crucial point I quote Walker at length. He explains:

Similarly Boshier et al. (1997) identify ‘Instructor Disclosure and Credibility’ as concerned with the extent to which those responsible for creating or teaching the course online disclosed the extent to which their credentials and background were congruent with the course content. The emphasis in this case was on the instructor:

… the purpose was to demonstrate that the quality or attractiveness of web courses is a composite of differentiated phenomena. This analysis suggests that, as well as the need to make web courses enjoyable and easy to navigate, there is a need to establish face validity or instructor credibility. (Boshier et al. 1997).

I have found that the most interactive and effective features of online learning and teaching spaces are the conferencing or discussion areas. The function of the mediator is very significant.

Through my own teaching I have examined several online discussion spaces which I discuss in the following section.

In this project teacher education students in their fourth year of study tutor secondary school students in writing. School students and university students work in small groups. The school students write and the university students look at their text and discuss ways in which they may improve their writing to a point where it may be published in a classroom newspaper. The only contact the students have with each other is online. All the writing is overseen by the classroom teacher and the university teacher. However, I do not write in the space. The purpose of the project was to have school and university students interact in the space. If I had anything to say to my students I did so via email. The key features of the discussion space is that it is web based, so the space can be accessed from anywhere where there is web access. You can access your writing and several people can access and edit the same piece of writing. It was most appropriate for the GLOW project.

In my face-to-face university tutorials it is a great compliment when a student feels free enough to ask: "What did you mean by that?" Such a facility needs to exist online. I get that question when I use words that students cannot understand or when the branches and sub-branches of my thinking get a bit difficult to follow. In the online version, students need to have access to online dictionaries, thesauruses and a selection of ‘jargon explainers’. They also need access to the teacher via email and access to the teacher and colleagues in a discussion space that is active.

In my face-to-face tutorials I try to cater for the different needs and learning styles of the students. In this project, I have been trying to do the same. So, in the project outline I ask: How can I cater for the different needs of students? Online teaching is an opportunity to present ‘layered learning opportunities’ so that students could identify and pursue the activities that suite them.

Online learning is only one of the options; it is not the only option. Students enjoy the opportunity to attend face-to-face sessions as well as to access online material. I started this project by having a number of face-to-face sessions where they became familiar with the online project environment. I encourage face-to-face meetings and we arrange meetings each semester between the student teachers and the school pupils.

The pedagogical skill to mediate an online discussion is especially crucial. While the electronic environment is significantly different to the face-to-face, what is common is that there are no easy answers that will work for all students and in all environments. The skills called for are at the very least vigilance, timing, involvement, appreciating silences, listening, understanding and respecting the participants.

Additionally, there are several questions that need to be considered. Should the mediator take an active role in the discussion? Should the mediator direct the discussion? Should the mediator adopt a pseudonym and not reveal her/his own identity?

It is easy to misconstrue the written word - you can't see the face of the author and you can't hear the tone. You read into a message your own expressions and tone, and often totally misunderstand. For this reason, making jokes on e-mail and being sarcastic online are dangerous! There were several comments about the online relationship being ‘quite demanding’. ‘You have to engage with what the student has written’ and ‘you have to get to know someone through their writing’.

Asynchronous communication such as we use in the GLOW project gives you the opportunity to see what you think before someone else sees what you said. Students for instance have commented about the advantages of being able to reflect on what you say before you publish it. Most students also commented on the significant difference between writing on the screen and writing on a page. Many have said ‘it takes getting used to’.

The most common response was that all teacher education students should have the opportunity to have a GLOW experience.

I used the RICE discussion space for two of my Masters in Education units where students (mostly practising teachers with some were from overseas) are required to take part and submit about 3000 words to an online discussion. In the RICE discussion space the full text of all the discussions is visible but participants are not able to edit the text of messages that they have not authored.

Most people write well over 3000 words (the average was 4500 words) and the course evaluations highlight the discussions as most enjoyable and instructive. Teachers discuss their professional reading, their classroom practices and problems, their professional development and exchang ideas about ‘what worked’. Many comment that it was difficult to start and the compulsory requirement of the unit forced them into it, but once there they forget about the word-count and just enjoyed talking. Here is an example of what was said:

From Japan:

Alessi, S. and Trollip, S. (1991) Computer-based instruction: methods and developments. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Cooper, P. (1993) Educational technology: Help for all the kids. The Computing Teacher, Vol.20, No.6, pp.11-15.

Boshier, R., Mohapi, M., Moulton, G., Quyyum, A., Sadownik, L., and Wilson, M. (1997) Best and worst dressed web courses: Strutting into the 21^st century in comfort and style. Distance Education, Vol. 18, No.2, pp. 327-349.

Brabazon . T. (2000) From Crayons to Perfume" to content providers: Teaching in the Information Age, Social Alternatives, vol.19, no.1.

Education Review, (2000) Internet Learning, June/July, p.10.

Johnson, R. (Ed.) (1995) Computers and Learning in Primary Schools: Research Project Report. Burwood: Deakin: University.

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1998) The Action Research Planner. Geelong: Deakin University Press.

McKenzie, J. (2000a) Beyond Technology: Questioning, Research and the Information Literate School. Bellingham, Washington: FNO Press.

McKenzie, J. (2000b) The Fourth R = Research. EQ Australia, Issue 2, Winter. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.

Ramsden, P. (Ed.) (1988) Learning to Teach in Higher Education, London, Routledge.

Vanderbilt, R. (1999) The Learning Curve. ID, March April.

Walker, R. (1997). Good reasons for staying off-line. Response given to a set of presentations on online teaching, Arts Faculty, Deakin University, December 10.