learning - Academic Conferences Limited
learning - Academic Conferences Limited learning - Academic Conferences Limited
Maria-Jesús Martínez-Argüelles et al. students it seems that they value more the contents of communication than the tool through which the message is transmitted. On the other hand, the tutors, in order to implement this feedback, need technical, communication and pedagogical training. Preparing personalized feedback requires additional dedication and new ways to correct continuous evaluation tests which make it difficult to extrapolate it to a group/classroom of 70 students. Particularly, if we bear in mind that the more personalized feedback is given to students, the more demanding they become, so a door opens to increasing interaction between tutor and learner. Acknowledgements This article is the result of a collective work resulting from the project (2010MQD00145) “TOWARDS AN IMPROVEMENT OF THE E-FEEDBACK”, funded by AGAUR. We are grateful to the work done by the rest of members of the project: J.M. Batalla-Busquets, P. Noguera-Guerra, Ernest Pons, Muriel Garreta Domingo, David Trelles Bertran and Antoni Mangas. We also want to thank the collaboration of Anna Espasa Roca when improving the methodological work around feedback. References Dempsey, J.V. & Wager, S.U. (1988). “A taxonomy for the timing of feedback in computer-based instruction”. Educational Technology, Vol 28, No. 10. pp 20–25. Espasa, A. (2008). “El Feedback en el marc de la regulació de l’aprenentatge: caracterització i anàlisi en un entorn formatiu en línia”. Doctoral Thesis. On line, http://www.tdx.cat/browse?value=Espasa+Roca%2C+Anna&type=author Hyland, F. (2001). “Providing Effective Support: Investigating feedback to distance language learners”. Open Learning, Vol 16, No. 3, pp 233-247. Hyland, F. (2003). “Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback”. System, Vol 31, 217-230. Kluger, A.N. & DeNisi, A. (1996). “The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory”. Psychological Bulletin, Vol Vol 119, No. 2, pp 254-284. Kramarski, B. & Zeichner, O. (2001). “Using technology to enchance mathematical reasoning: Effects of feedback and self-regulation learning”. Educational Media International, Vol 38, No. 2-3, pp 77-82. Kulhavy, R.W. & Stock, W.A. (1989). “Feedback in written instruction: the place of response certitude”. Educational Pyschology Review, Vol , No. 4, pp 279-308. Martínez, M.J.; Juan, A.A. & Castan, J. (2010). “Using the Critical Incident Technique to Identify Factors of Service Quality in Online Higher Education”. International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector, Vol 2, No. 4, pp 57-72. Mason, J. & Brunning, R. (2001). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: what the research tell us. University of Nebraska-Lincoln: http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html Narciss, S. (2004). “The impact of informative tutoring feedback and self-efficacy on motivation and achievement in concept learning”. Experimental Psychology, Vol 5, No. 3, pp 214-228. Narciss, S. (2008). “Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks”. A J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Van Merriënboer & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (Aect). Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey (EUA). Narciss, S. & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. A H. M. Niegemann, R. Brünken & D. Leutner (Eds.), Instructional Design for Multimedia Learning (pp. 181-195). Münster: Waxmann. Narciss, S. & Huth, K. (2006). Fostering achievement and motivation with bug-related tutoring feedback in a computer-based training for written subtraction. Learning and Instruction, Vol 16, No. 4, pp 310-322. Rice, M., Mousley, J & Davis, R. (1994). “Improving student feedack in distance education: a research report”. A T. Evans & D. Murphy (Eds.), Research in distance education (pp. 52-62). Deaking University Press Geelong, Australia. 472
Cyberbullying: A Workplace Virus David Mathew University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK David.Mathew@beds.ac.uk Abstract: This paper explores workplace cyberbullying in an education institution in the south of England, in which declarations of zero tolerance towards bullying masked the reality that it was silently condoned as a means of controlling staff. As with face-to-face bullying, cyberbullying is a matter of impact and not necessarily of intent; and here we contemplate the role of the bully and the role of the victim, while viewing an example through a lens of control theory. The following questions – Is there a need for bullying in the workplace? Does it serve a function? Does bullying help contain workplace anxiety as well as create it? – are posed. The case of a man in his mid-thirties, who was systematically bullied by his manager for eighteen months, is presented. Here I examine the social structures that the bullying enforced (and destroyed) and examine what the subject learned from the manager's behaviour. In my commentary on this case study I refer to Wilfred Bion's work on workgroup anxiety. In Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, Freud explores group formation and the giving up of individual ideals for the group ideal. I argue that something analogous happens in a workplace environment in which bullying is rife and in which a scapegoat must be found, even if there is no corresponding misdemeanor for which he must be punished. I examine the need for homogeneity when it comes to bullying, as well as the issues of power; transference; the defence against paranoid anxieties; and what happens when a manager is troubled by others' intelligence. Finally, in the second half of the paper, I extrapolate a future of cyberbullying. The name of the company in question has been made anonymous and throughout this paper is referred to only as 'the Institution'. Similarly, the name given to the victim – Rob – has been invented for the sake of anonymity, at his request. Keywords: cyberbullying, bullying, anxiety, control 1. The poisoned department At the end of March 2011, the comedy/satire website The Daily Mash produced a faux-news story entitled ‘Mob seeks new thing to be angry about’. In this article it emerges that, around the United Kingdom, enraged people 'may be forced to return to their slightly depressing lives unless they can find a new cause' to rebel against in a violent manner.'The angry mob,' the story continues, 'who had been shouting a lot outside a building they believed was the site of a trial but was actually the remains of a Courts Furniture Superstore, have been enjoying being definitely the goodies for once.' It is interesting to note this use of for once. Bullies who work in crowds – whether their own tags would be anarchists, agitators, even protesters – are well aware that they are not 'the goodies' in the eyes of others: by preying on weaker targets they are clearly in the wrong – again, in the eyes of others – whatever their original motives. But are they in the wrong in their own eyes? And what implications does self-awareness, or the lack of it, have for the twenty-first century's development of a bullying culture, namely the rise of cyberbullying? More specifically still, what implications are there for the victim and the perpetrator of cyberbullying in the workplace? It might come as a shock to some people that organisations exist in which cyberbullying is not only accepted, it is silently encouraged as a tried and tested means of controlling staff. When we think of industries in which bullying is rife, perhaps we think of industries in which a strict and enforced hierarchical structure is in place: the Army, for example; the Police Force, the Prison Service, or the Navy. Whether these perceptions are justified or not, these industries are more likely to be thought of as places were bullying occurs. However, there are industries in which, for all their proclamations of fairness for all and zero tolerance towards bullying and harassment, a general air of malice and fear is not only allowed to exist, but is encouraged. The Institution referred to herein is an example in the education industry. The workplace operates on a system of strict hierarchy, in which management and the lower-paid education staff rarely communicate beyond the necessary; in which creative thinking and inititaitve is firmly suppressed. As John Steiner writes in Seeing and Being Seen (2011): 'A tolerance of difference is necessary for development and for creativity, but difference can also provoke envy, and it is often when this is attached to injustice that the destructiveness becomes so magnified' (p.12). It is this triangulation – of envy, injustice and destructiveness – that has raised the bullying bar to new heights of creative cruelty. Although cyberbullying is in its infancy, it is growing up fast, and effective techniques are maturing with it. At places like the Institution, where it is at best ignored and at worst condoned, it pays to keep 473
- Page 448 and 449: Birgy Lorenz et al. Akdeniz, Y. (19
- Page 450 and 451: Arno Louw programmes, and within th
- Page 452 and 453: Arno Louw It should be clearly stat
- Page 454 and 455: Arno Louw somewhat an unwritten con
- Page 456 and 457: Arno Louw Lecturers assume that le
- Page 458 and 459: A treasure hunt has to be done to f
- Page 460 and 461: How to Represent a Frog That can be
- Page 462 and 463: Robert Lucas Occasionally we will a
- Page 464 and 465: Robert Lucas Note the need to creat
- Page 466 and 467: Robert Lucas Figure 5: A model of a
- Page 468 and 469: Learning by Wandering: Towards a Fr
- Page 470 and 471: Marie Martin and Michaela Noakes wa
- Page 472 and 473: Marie Martin and Michaela Noakes Th
- Page 474 and 475: Marie Martin and Michaela Noakes is
- Page 476 and 477: Linda Martin et al. across the sect
- Page 478 and 479: Linda Martin et al. confidence. Alt
- Page 480 and 481: 8. Conclusion Linda Martin et al. T
- Page 482 and 483: Personalized e-Feedback and ICT Mar
- Page 484 and 485: Maria-Jesus Martinez-Argüelles et
- Page 486 and 487: Source: Own elaboration from survey
- Page 488 and 489: Maria-Jesus Martinez-Argüelles et
- Page 490 and 491: Maria-Jesus Martinez-Argüelles et
- Page 492 and 493: 1.1 Semantic dimension Maria-Jesús
- Page 494 and 495: 2. Methodology Maria-Jesús Martín
- Page 496 and 497: Maria-Jesús Martínez-Argüelles e
- Page 500 and 501: David Mathew members of staff frigh
- Page 502 and 503: David Mathew disclose this informat
- Page 504 and 505: David Mathew baboon smells the wate
- Page 506 and 507: Peter Mikulecky framing learning, p
- Page 508 and 509: Peter Mikulecky inhabitants or work
- Page 510 and 511: Acknowledgements Peter Mikulecky Th
- Page 512 and 513: Karen Hughes Miller and Linda Leake
- Page 514 and 515: Karen Hughes Miller and Linda Leake
- Page 516 and 517: Karen Hughes Miller and Linda Leake
- Page 518 and 519: An Analysis of Collaborative Learni
- Page 520 and 521: 2.3 Flexible and accessible learnin
- Page 522 and 523: 3.1 Definition of case study Peter
- Page 524 and 525: Peter Mkhize et al. Basically, soci
- Page 526 and 527: Peter Mkhize et al. you’ve got yo
- Page 528 and 529: Ideas for Using Critical Incidents
- Page 530 and 531: Jonathan Moizer and Jonathan Lean I
- Page 532 and 533: Jonathan Moizer and Jonathan Lean o
- Page 534: Jonathan Moizer and Jonathan Lean M
Maria-Jesús Martínez-Argüelles et al.<br />
students it seems that they value more the contents of communication than the tool through which the<br />
message is transmitted.<br />
On the other hand, the tutors, in order to implement this feedback, need technical, communication<br />
and pedagogical training. Preparing personalized feedback requires additional dedication and new<br />
ways to correct continuous evaluation tests which make it difficult to extrapolate it to a<br />
group/classroom of 70 students. Particularly, if we bear in mind that the more personalized feedback<br />
is given to students, the more demanding they become, so a door opens to increasing interaction<br />
between tutor and learner.<br />
Acknowledgements<br />
This article is the result of a collective work resulting from the project (2010MQD00145) “TOWARDS<br />
AN IMPROVEMENT OF THE E-FEEDBACK”, funded by AGAUR. We are grateful to the work done<br />
by the rest of members of the project: J.M. Batalla-Busquets, P. Noguera-Guerra, Ernest Pons, Muriel<br />
Garreta Domingo, David Trelles Bertran and Antoni Mangas. We also want to thank the collaboration<br />
of Anna Espasa Roca when improving the methodological work around feedback.<br />
References<br />
Dempsey, J.V. & Wager, S.U. (1988). “A taxonomy for the timing of feedback in computer-based instruction”.<br />
Educational Technology, Vol 28, No. 10. pp 20–25.<br />
Espasa, A. (2008). “El Feedback en el marc de la regulació de l’aprenentatge: caracterització i anàlisi en un<br />
entorn formatiu en línia”. Doctoral Thesis. On line,<br />
http://www.tdx.cat/browse?value=Espasa+Roca%2C+Anna&type=author<br />
Hyland, F. (2001). “Providing Effective Support: Investigating feedback to distance language learners”. Open<br />
Learning, Vol 16, No. 3, pp 233-247.<br />
Hyland, F. (2003). “Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback”. System, Vol 31, 217-230.<br />
Kluger, A.N. & DeNisi, A. (1996). “The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a<br />
meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory”. Psychological Bulletin, Vol Vol 119, No. 2,<br />
pp 254-284.<br />
Kramarski, B. & Zeichner, O. (2001). “Using technology to enchance mathematical reasoning: Effects of feedback<br />
and self-regulation <strong>learning</strong>”. Educational Media International, Vol 38, No. 2-3, pp 77-82.<br />
Kulhavy, R.W. & Stock, W.A. (1989). “Feedback in written instruction: the place of response certitude”.<br />
Educational Pyschology Review, Vol , No. 4, pp 279-308.<br />
Martínez, M.J.; Juan, A.A. & Castan, J. (2010). “Using the Critical Incident Technique to Identify Factors of<br />
Service Quality in Online Higher Education”. International Journal of Information Systems in the Service<br />
Sector, Vol 2, No. 4, pp 57-72.<br />
Mason, J. & Brunning, R. (2001). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: what the research tell us.<br />
University of Nebraska-Lincoln: http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html<br />
Narciss, S. (2004). “The impact of informative tutoring feedback and self-efficacy on motivation and achievement<br />
in concept <strong>learning</strong>”. Experimental Psychology, Vol 5, No. 3, pp 214-228.<br />
Narciss, S. (2008). “Feedback strategies for interactive <strong>learning</strong> tasks”. A J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Van<br />
Merriënboer & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and<br />
Technology (Aect). Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey (EUA).<br />
Narciss, S. & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia <strong>learning</strong>. A H. M.<br />
Niegemann, R. Brünken & D. Leutner (Eds.), Instructional Design for Multimedia Learning (pp. 181-195).<br />
Münster: Waxmann.<br />
Narciss, S. & Huth, K. (2006). Fostering achievement and motivation with bug-related tutoring feedback in a<br />
computer-based training for written subtraction. Learning and Instruction, Vol 16, No. 4, pp 310-322.<br />
Rice, M., Mousley, J & Davis, R. (1994). “Improving student feedack in distance education: a research report”. A<br />
T. Evans & D. Murphy (Eds.), Research in distance education (pp. 52-62). Deaking University Press<br />
Geelong, Australia.<br />
472
Change language