Lipnack and Stamps argue that in virtual team, team must clarify and refine purpose into the process of work to accomplish result Lipnack et al., 1997. They say
“Goal, Tasks, Result, these interrelated terms reflect the universal pattern of work: a motivating source, a target at the end, and a sequence of steps that connects the
source and the target over time” Lipnack et al., 1997 p.65.
1.15.7. Multiple Media
Recently computer-based communication, such as Internet, allows text, audio and video to be transmitted around the world. Lipnack and Stamps suggest that virtual
teams need to maximise their usage of media in order to enable interaction and develop relationship Lipnack et al., 1997.
1.15.8. Boundary-Crossing Interactions
Lipnack and Stamps 1997 say that what make teams become virtual are the communicating, interacting, and forming relationships across space, time, and
organisations.
1.15.9. Trusting relationships
Lipnack and Stamps say “Trust is the all-purpose grease for the ongoing hard work of the team
” Lipnack et al., 1997 p. 225, not trusting people and their competence would mean not relying on them or the result of their work. Lipnack and
Stamps argue that in virtual teams with boundary-crossing, teams need more trust then collocated teams, as trust is harder to attain and easy to lose in teams without
daily face-to face contact Lipnack et al., 1997. They then argue that teams with higher levels of trust would produce more easily, organise their work more quickly,
and manage themselves better.
1.16. The Need of Effective University
Laurillard notes that universities always try to make academic learning more effective, known as the changing university. She states “the drivers for change have
been the need to expand access, the need to cut costs, and the economical potential of using new technology”
Laurillard, 1996. She underlying that these drivers for change are wholly external pressures that have no relation to the substantive content
to higher university. According to her, computer-based teaching, which has relation of
the substantive content of higher education, should be considered to be the basis for change, the changing university Laurillard, 1996.
Laurillards analysis of university teaching led to the development of a conversational framework, as a model student-teacher interaction see Figure 2.3.
This framework comprises of a number of key characteristics. These are drawn from Laurillard 1993, pp. 94-95.
Discursive • Teachers and students conceptions should each be accessible to the other
• Teacher and students must agree learning goals for the topic and task goals • The teacher must provide an environment within which students can act on,
generate and receive feedback on descriptions appropriate to the topic goal. Adaptive
• The teacher has the responsibility to use the relationship between their own and the students conception to determine the focus of the continuing dialogue.
Interactive • The students must act to achieve the task goal
• The teacher must provide meaningful intrinsic feedback on the actions that relate to the nature of the task goal.
Reflective • The teacher must support the process in which students link the feedback on
their actions to the topic goal for every level of description within the topic structure.
She argues that the Conversational Framework for academic learning, describes the teaching-learning process as an interaction between teacher and student, operating
at two levels, the discursive level level of theory and the interactive level level of practice Laurillard, 1996. According to her, the discursive level represents the way
the teacher articulates the subject matter, or presents the ideas, then the student joins the dialogue, giving their point of view, asking questions, practising the moves of
languages and argument, proof and representation. The interactive level represents the way the student acts in the world, or a world constructed by the teacher, then
experience of the theory in action can be obtain from their interactive activities Laurillard, 1996. The teacher strategies in this model are based on the interaction
between the teacher and the student and not solely on the action required of the student. In this model, students action is constructed around the dialog supplemented
by constructive and meaningful feedback from the teacher and should provide opportunities for student reflection.
Figure 2.3 Laurillards Conversational Framework Laurillard, 1993.
The usage of Information and Communication Technology ICT to support learners reflection through linking students reflection and conceptualisation in order
to practise external in a specific learning community of practice has been observed by Bell. She says Reflection and conceptualisation were evident despite the apparent
decontextualisation of the setting Bell, 2000.
Based on conversational framework for a comparative analysis of teaching media, Laurillard argues that computer-based media can produce results of a more
balanced distribution across attending, practising, discussing, and articulating. These are the key types of learning activities, and it means achievement of a more effective
balance between active learning and mere attending Laurillard, 1996.
1.17. Web Based Teaching and Learning
