STUDENT INTERACTIONS IN

FORMAL AND INFORMAL

VIRTUAL SPACES:
SIMILARITIES AND
DIFFERENCES

Filomena Amador, Fernando Caetano,

Carla Padrel de Oliveira, Luís Gonzaga Albuquerque

Universidade Aberta, Lisboa, Portugal

 Nicolau Copérnico
(1473-1543)

ØDistance education methodologies must be adapted to best

use multiple forms of interaction afforded by the Internet.
ØUniversidade Aberta has an accumulated experience in
distance education that is currently supported on a
pedagogical model for on-line, based on four principles
(Pereira et al., 2007):
vstudent-centred learning,
vflexibility,
vinteraction and
vdigital inclusion.
ØIt is our belief that student-student interactions enrich and
complement student-teacher and student-content interactions.

Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
 Johannes Kepler
(1571-1630)

The present work is concerned with the interaction

between students in formal,
formal and informal social
spaces
It is expected that both modes of interaction will
lead and facilitate the construction of learning
communities

 The observation of the inter-learner interactions leads

to some questions:
 What characterizes the group interaction dynamics
in both environments?
 Is there any difference in the group dynamics
when we compare the formal and the informal
environments?

Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
 Galileu Galilei
(1564-1642)

 First enrolment of a graduate program

on Environmental Sciences in the year
2007-2008
 113 students
 Purpose of the course:
 promote and develop the skills and competencies to
yield knowledgeable professionals in the topic of
environmental studies that includes content concerning
 Natural Heritage,

 Environment and Health,

 Environmental Management and Sustainability

Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
 Isaac Newton
(1642-1727)

 In order to analyze the content of the

interventions occurred in the formal and
informal virtual spaces a classification of the
types of argumentation dialogues was adapted.
 The classification was categorized according to the
communication registered in two types:
 Symmetrical – the person starting the dialogue expects an
answer (categories A - E);
 Asymmetrical – does not require an action or response
(category F);
 These classifications and analysis were based on the
content, subject and objective defined in the initial
message.

Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
Types of argumentation dialogue in formal and informal virtual spaces

Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
 Robert Boyle
(1627-1691)

 Also a quantification of the number of

visualizations and interventions that
occurred, per month, both in:

 the socializing space - "Environmental

Café
 one of the curricular study units -
"Concepts of Fundamental Chemistry

was carried out.

Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
 Charles Lyell
(1797-1895)
Characterisation of virtual spaces

 The virtual spaces created for the students:

i. a website for the course coordination where only the
students and the program coordination were given
access;
ii. a website for the course, where the learning materials
were deposited as well as being dedicated to the
necessary work of the semester;
iii. a website for social interactions that mainly occurred
between the students.

The present work analyses items ii and iii

collection of data and qualitative observations

Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
 William Thompson,
Kelvin (1824-1907)
Number of discussions (N) as a function of:
View discussion Add discussion

Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
Distribution of the types of interaction in the socializing space (general and thematic)
during the semester.

Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
Distribution of the total interaction number during the first elective semester of
curricular unit for Concepts of Fundamental Chemistry:
View discussion Add discussion

Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
 Max Planck
(1858-1947)

 The type of interaction changed from a simple

request for help to a cognitive process where
 debates and conversations were deeper and
more productive regarding the process of learning

 There was an increase in the interventions

relating to sharing experiences (D)
 establishment of ties
 formation of group identity, spirit and belonging

 The thematic spaces were mainly devoted to

the discussion of matters related to the
scientific subjects without the interference of
teachers:
 the students interaction were more open.
Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
 Albert Einstein
(1879-1955)

 It was our expectation that students would realize the

scientific discussions were most appropriately within
the space of the curricular unit rather than transposing
those discussions to a socializing space as afforded by
the classification B (debate).

 However, reality was different than expectation in that the

students used both websites for this purpose but with different
goal in mind:
 when they require a direct action or response from the
teacher then they would use the website of the curricular
unit – formal virtual space
 for exchanging opinions or points of view between them
they used the socializing forum – informal virtual space

Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
 Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
 Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
 Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
 Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks
 Characterisati
Introduction Discussion Final remarks