Gilly Salmon’s 5 step model
July 11th, 2006 by gina.revillWhen discussing Gilly Salmon’s work, surely one must begin with the famous 5-step model.
Much of what is here I can recognise from my experience in Ultraversity. Certainly, I agree that someone needs a lot of motivation, and a clear purpose in order to overcome the initial challenge of using new technology and posting a first message.
I don’t really disagree with any of the stages - it’s all very sensible and practical. It’s useful to consider that people might go through stages when learning to communicate online. I’m just not sure that in practice, things are quite so linear.
For example, the author in Stage Two: online socialization, claims that, ‘this stage is over when participants start to share a little of themselves online.’ And for Stage Three: ‘At this stage, the motivation and enjoyment come from personal and experiential communication.’ Seems rather black and white. Isn’t it all a bit more messy in real life?
In a conversation with Lesley she said that for her, the model would have more overlaps and not exist in such discrete steps. The steps imply a simplistic hierarchy.
I recently conducted a small scale study into the exchanges between myself as an Ultraversity Learning Facilitator and an Ultraversity Researcher. I used a different system for cataloguing our exchanges; a non-hierachical taxonomy. However, if I try to fit our conversations into the 5-stage model, at times when we were at stage three (information exchange), we were also still conducting ‘online socialization’, while constructing knowledge.
So how does a person in an online context develop as a learner? What might be more helpful to represent this journey than a series of steps?
Comments
This is very interesting. From my own research I am finding that it is very hard to try to get people to share a little of themselves. My frequent requests for feedback are generally ignored. I get a smattering of people replying to me privately, but to share the experience with others seems to be a step that is not lightly undertaken. Could it be that the online environment is conducive to learning in private and although feedback for to the learner can be important, when it comes to sharing back it is essentially a private learning activity and difficult to take that first step?
Vix
July 11th, 2006
Yes. Time this model was debunked. Not purely on the grounds that I have never seen any research evidence to show the stages nor methodology to describe how they were acheived.
Like all stage theories you are right to challenge the linearity. Who says you move from one to another and ever upward? Why not options in a grid? Or in differnet dimensions according to need?
Look at the value judgements being made by the author about was is good/approapraite/of value for the participants. What assumptions.
Also look at how each “stage” is described. The brief description focuses on different dimensions and does not show a complete story of the experience. Stage 3 has two types of interaction (people and content). Does this not occur in 4 or 1?
I would quibble with the titles. Why is 2 socialisation any more than 1 or 4?
So why is “sustainable community” the goal? Where else in educational life does one value such a group?Or is this a replacement for some form of social grouping like a family? (Values agian).
Tear this nonsense apart, Gina. Go girl. attagirl
Ian
July 11th, 2006
What research are you talking about Vix? Do you mean the teaching of folk music through podcasts?
Could be that you have other factors - nothng compulsory for example - there are bound to be more frequent interactions online if it’s part of a wider formal assessment.
Gina
July 11th, 2006
Thanks Ian!
I wasn’t being quite so ambitious! I see weaknesses in the model but am finding it’s very easy to critique other’s models but harder to come up with a better one
Have been scribbling around this afternoon - and have some ideas but need to take better shape. I certainly see weaknesses with the step metaphor - though can see its worth for an introduction for beginners into the kind of online interaction a tutor might be looking for. It just doesn’t cut it though for the complexity of real life interaction.
Gina
July 11th, 2006
Personally i find it hard to get past the “E-tivities” label…
However, I think you are right Gina to set the work in context. It was published a good 6 years ago and whatever the experience/research that informed it was would be at least a couple of years older than that.
However, the explanation of model given is short on detail and high on twaddle “By now, both participants and e-moderators will stop wondering how they can use online participation and instead become committed and creative. They also become critical and self-reflective. At stage 5, Lou is confident in reflection, assessment and the journey forward.??? I am not sure where this miraculous transformation is supposed to come from? Is it transmitted by osmosis or is there a purposeful intention to model desired behaviours such as critical reflection or personal reflexivity, what about place of ???challenge??? in critical feedback.
Sorry Gilly, but the diagram and cartoons don’t stand alone as it is??.
Stephen Powell
July 11th, 2006
When reading the model in the context of the whole book, I think actually her philosophy of learning is close to ours at Ultralab. If I could try to put my finger on what bothers me about it - I think it’s a simplistic teach-online-by-numbers model.
It must be helpful for many people - it’s ubiquitous in HE.
I suppose that doesn’t mean it couldn’t do with a face lift.
Gina
July 13th, 2006
Hi from Auckland’s winter sunshine…
I came across your blog as part of my PhD lit review. I began working with Salmon’s 5 steps a few years ago but found that discussion often died after the sharing info stage (3) and there are published case studies reporting much the same. I don’t reckon the process is linear either - people usually go round the tech and social loops several times in the course of a discussion. I’m working on a non-linear model, but it’ll be while before it sees light of day!
Have you come across McFadzean & McKenzie’s team model? See McFadzean, E., & McKenzie, J. (2001). Facilitating virtual learning groups. Journal of management development, 20(6), 470-494.
They’re from Henley Management College and it’s a team development model (are online learning groups the same as online teams? I think not, but her model may help). It’s still linear, but the levels are:
Attention to the task
Attention to the process
Attention to team development
Attention to team dynamics
Attention to team trust
Any use?
Jennie
July 25th, 2006
Thanks Jennie - it’s of use yes! I’d love to talk to you more about the development of your model.
What is your phD?
I’m reading Salmon as part of my MA dissertation lit review. It’d be great to keep in touch.
Gina
July 28th, 2006
I’m doing my PhD with The University of Southern Queensland, as I’ve done a few postgrad papers with them and I’m impressed with their expertise in fostering meaningful discussion - sometimes with as many as 77 students in a single course. Phew!
For the ASCILITE conference in Brisbane last year I did a meta-analysis of 3 models: Salmon’s, McFadzean & McKenzie’s and Megginson & Clutterbuck’s 7 stage mentoring model. It really showed up the gaps in Salmon’s model.
I wish I knew how to paste a graphic into a blog so I could add the diagram here! They key thing I think is that the process was still linear and for my PhD I’m working on the idea that learning conversations are not. There are many layers and I’m only just beginning to try to sort them out.
Jennie
July 31st, 2006
Leave a Reply