Engagement and participatory democracy in online communities of inquiry

1. Engagement and participatory democracy in online communities of inquiry Jim Waters The iSchool at Drexel

2. What is the BIG problem ? How do we get students to engage in a committed collaborative knowledge building enterprise in an online learning setting ? Engaging students is hard enough when you can see them in front of you … … When they are remote, it is even harder.

3. What do we know about online learning ? • Rapid growth in online education (Allen and Seaman 2007; Griffiths and Gatien 1999) • Efficiency gains, flexibility for consumers and the potential for more effective learning (Benbunan-Fich and Hiltz 1999; Benbunan-Fich, Hiltz and Turoff 2001; Hiltz and Wellman 1997) • Longer preparation times (Burgess and Strong 2003), • Anecdotal nature of many positive results (McNaught, Kenny, Kennedy and Lord 1999) • Lack of satisfaction with the process experienced by many learners (Ocker and Yaverbaum 1999).

4. Dissatisfaction may be related to our traditional model of teaching and learning

5. So what else do we know ? • Collaborative activity important in constructing knowledge (Stahl 2006; Lave and Wenger 1991; Jonassen, Mayes and McAleese 1993) • Online students exhibit the behaviors found in a Social Network (Garton, Haythornthwaite and Wellman 1997; McDonald, Noakes, Stuckey and Nyrop 2005) • Weak Ties (Granovetter, 1973) • Even without formal roles being assigned , leadership behaviors emerge in online settings (Heckman and Misiolek 2005; Carte, Chidambaram, and Becker 2006) • Students display different levels of engagement, depending on psychological involvement (Kappelman & McLean 1992)

6. Alternative models emphasize the social construction of knowledge

7. Newer models view learning as taking place within a community of inquiry Garrison et al 2001 Stahl 2006

8. The community of inquiry concept is not new … There is a community engaged in inquiry. Inquiry is an open-ended process with positive feedback. Dewey (1916)

9. But engagement with social construction in learning adds new dimensions Material A Community of Inquiry (Garrison et al 2001) Cognitive Artifacts Learning Consensus Product Knowledge Iteration Collaboration Internalization Externalization

10. Research Question How may we encourage deep, constructivist learning within an online community of inquiry?

11. Research Context • Analyzed online interactions in graduate classes in information systems and information science • Graduate students are mostly experienced professionals, who are motivated to engage with education • Findings can inform how we implement “best practice” for such students • Course interactions via discussion board on Blackboard learning system • Most common channel of communication for online courses • Discussion boards used as substitute for in-class debate • Issue is how to ensure greatest engagement with learning via this channel of communication.

12. Research Method • Initial study: 2 ten-week graduate courses • Collected and analyzed student messages posted to discussion board • Analyzed on a per-message level, to understand online interaction behaviors • Content analysis also performed, to understand degree of engagement • Analyzed • Type of message, • Patterns of message sequences • Threads and sub-thread interactions • Social interactions • Student behaviors related to learning outcomes

14. Learning Interaction Behaviors • Analysis revealed 8 types of interaction behaviors • Silence (Vicarious learner) • Contractual Obligation (Contributor) • Social connector (Initiator) • I agree with Fred (Vicarious Acknowledger) • How do I ? (Knowledge elicitor) • Active Facilitation (facilitator) • Reframing (complicator) • Synthesis (closer) • Behaviors are fluid and interact (feedback loop) • Some interactions are more productive than others • It is possible to learn actively though invisibly.

15. Initial Research Findings • The most attended to participants posted more facilitation messages (39% of messages posted) • The least attended to participants typically posted far fewer facilitation messages. (23% of messages posted). • Students quickly identify valuable contributors • Student-Student interactions become more frequent over time compared with Student-Instructor interactions

16. Detailed Research Questions • Do various patterns of behavior lead to different levels of student engagement with learning? • Do various types of student interaction lead to different levels of student engagement with learning? • How can we encourage patterns of behavior or types of student interaction that lead to deeper levels of student engagement with learning?

17. Three Levels of Engagement Waters & Gasson (2006)

18. Earlier research 2004 - 2007 • Social network behaviors (Haythornthwaite 1999) • In-degree and out-degree (centrality) • Centrality correlates with status (a bit) • Interaction behavior correlates strongly with centrality • Cliquing over time • In-degree and out-degree decline universally

19. Earlier research 2004 - 2007 • Social engagement • Levels of engagement • Deep Iterative, collaborative knowledge building • Identification with community and commitment to group learning • Problem framing important to engagement • Strong Core individuals (Thought-leaders) • relate a community understanding to professional expertise or domain-knowledge • deeper levels of course engagement than other students • Drive engagement process for peers

20. Thought-Leaders in Online Debate • Provide impetus to discussion • Quality not volume • Facilitate and complicate • Responders and Inspirers • (Inspirational responders) • Critique, refine, reframe • Encourage, moderate, enthuse

21. Thought-leaders encouraging discussion

22. Thought-leaders as exclusionary ?

23. Weaving threads into a Cloth • To what extent do interaction behaviors affect quality of online engagement, learning outcomes and learning satisfaction ? • How do we recognize and encourage engagement ? • How do we recognize a breakdown in engagement ? • To what extent do interaction behaviors concord with perceptions of students as thought-leaders ? • Does the presence of thought-leaders affect quality of online discussion ? • Are there any common factors that identify thought-leaders ? • Are thought leaders a good idea ? • Participatory democracy (Dewey, 1916) vs. benevolent oligarchy

24. Participatory democracy vs. benevolent oligarchy • Will an active core of students bring in peripheral participants or exclude them ? • How do we get peripheral participants to join the circle ? • Does it matter if some do not actively participate ? • I meant to ask that but…… • Vicarious learners or lurkers ? • Should we moderate core participants dominating the discussion or encourage them ?

25. Data • 11 Drexel Online Graduate Courses • Mix of IS and Library Science • 240 Students • Open-ended and Procedural material • Blackboard™ • Weekly Online Discussion Board • Faculty committed to collaborative learning approach

26. The discussion board as a tool for engagement • Asynchronous discussion boards • Guided collaborative debate • Allow participants time to read prior posts and reflect on them before making their own contributions (English and Yazadani 1999; Lipponen 2001) • Problem-based approach • How do students feel about this ?

27. The Glass is Half-Full? Absolutely! This is the core of online learning I enjoy the blackboard discussions because it gives a sense of community to an online course.  I do enjoy online collaboration and feel that this is a wonderful opportunity to learn from professionals with varied experiences and backgrounds The exchange of ideas and the associated discussion is at the heart of the academic experience Yes, I like collaborating in online discussions. Different perspectives add value to the discussion I find that the discussions are more productive and that people make more substantial and better considered contributions when writing to the discussion boards. In addition, it is easier for me because I have time to read, think, and digest the material before crafting a response

28. Or is it half empty ? I do not enjoy discussion boards at all. I would much prefer figuring out the content of the course by myself and emailing the professor for assistance when need be, or posting my question on the discussion board. I would rather not have to endure discussion board participation. About seventy percent of the time I think that it’s an annoyance. … Of all the aspects of the online experience, the discussion board is my least favorite. So far I haven’t felt much like I’ve made any personal connections with my fellow students. With the discussion boards, you have to make an effort to read the other students’ posts and sometimes it’s tempting not to. Generally, no. From what I have seen so far here at Drexel, the discussions tend to get a bit grandstanding-ishand there’s always the one student who has to answer everyone and be first to get to everything and has cutsie messages for the teacher… same as in an onsite classroom, but more annoying online because you have to read everything to be sure you’re not missing anything important.

29. Who are thought-Leaders?Case Study I • Lib Science course, 25 students • Surveyed students opinions • Strong agreement on leaders (2) • S6 (85%) • S13 (85%) • How are they different, if at all

30. Post Count

31. So what is different about them ? • S6 • Technical writer • Teaching experience • Limited Domain Knowledge • Limited online learning experience • Extensive work experience • Discussion board skeptic Generally, no. From what I have seen so far here at Drexel, the discussions tend to get a bit grandstanding-ish and there’s always the one student who has to answer everyone and be first to get to everything and has cutsie messages for the teacher… same as in an onsite classroom, but more annoying online because you have to read everything to be sure you’re not missing anything important

32. So what is different about them ? • S13 • New graduate (Arts) • Limited Domain Knowledge • No online learning experience • No teaching experience • No opinion on discussion boards

33. How do they behave ? • Not particularly social • Neither attempts to build a social network • Both task oriented • Both top inspirers (posts elicit responses) • Average responders • More frequently read – NO • Did they talk to each other – not really

34. The Thought-leaders’ posts • Facilitate • S23, your question stirred up my thoughts on librarianship. Have any of you had any practical experiences here? Any ideas on how to handle this? Interesting! • Encourage • It's interesting that you said "reference hat" because it reminded me of something… • Reframe • the problem of inadequate users is completely different from solving the problem of hostile users because the former has problems of illiteracy and inability to use services, while the latter are well-educated but underestimate the usefulness of libraries.  Using the same techniques for each of these non-users would be very ineffective

35. Who are thought-Leaders?Case Study II • IS course • 25 students • Surveyed student opinion • Two strong thought-leaders • S15 & S18

36. S15 & S18 • Similar backgrounds • Strongest domain knowledge • Strongest practical experience • Not great inspirers • Average responders

37. S18 • Authoritative Posts • Opinion supported by external sources • Real world examples (own and 3rd party) • Synthesizes arguments • Reframes debate, challenges question • Some positive feedback • Long detailed posts, but few posts • Limited involvement in deep threads • A Closer – attempts definitive answer

38. S15 • Collaborative (collegial) tone • Opinion supported by external sources, though not as much as S18 • Hypothetical examples “suppose they…” • Strong positive feedback for peers • Short posts • Frequent posts • Strong involvement in deep threads

39. How does this help ? • Context is crucial • No approach has universal utility • Domain differences ? • Experience not always crucial ! • Collaborative spirit vs. Authority • It depends • So, if peer behavior is important to engagement, to what extent can faculty intervention encourage engagement ?

40. Moderated vs. Laissez-faireCase Study III   • Two sections of an IS course delivered at the same time – same basic syllabus • Same number of students (25) • Selected six “identical” questions on each section • Different Instructor approach • Heavy moderation vs. lightweight moderation

41. Questions and Approach (messages)

44. Deep threads without instructor intervention

46. Deep threads without instructor intervention

47. So does providing feedback help ? What about question design ?

48. Posing questions - general • Sometimes a committed , motivated and interested group with decent moderation will be inert. • Even within the same niche of the same domain some questions just work better than others • Good question design is not trivial even for domain experts • Does the question connect to student experience, real or vicarious • Is the question relevant to the course • Does the question represent a well-structured single knowledge domain goal

49. Good, bad or average? I would like each of you to initially focus on one fact finding technique, your contribution should be a critical (but brief) examination of that technique within the domain of systems analysis. [fact-finding] Critically evaluate the author's FAST approach. Is it useful? Practical? What are some alternatives?  Is this a "real" model that could be used on "real" projects? [Fast or Slow] I want you to cook up a systems development project (real or imagined). Describe the goal(s), the objective(s) of the project and the scope of the work the systems analyst for the project. Post your goals, objectives and scope by around Thursday of this week. I'd then like each of you to comment a bit on each other's work. [cooking up a new project]

50. And the Winner is I want you to cook up a systems development project (real or imagined). Describe the goal(s), the objective(s) of the project and the scope of the work the systems analyst for the project. Post your goals, objectives and scope by around Thursday of this week. I'd then like each of you to comment a bit on each other's work. [cooking up a new project] I would like each of you to initially focus on one fact finding technique, your contribution should be a critical (but brief) examination of that technique within the domain of systems analysis. [fact-finding] Critically evaluate the author's FAST approach. Is it useful? Practical? What are some alternatives?  Is this a "real" model that could be used on "real" projects? [Fast or Slow]