1 / 38

How much Structure is too Much?: Analysis of Structure in Asynchronous Discussion Boards

How much Structure is too Much?: Analysis of Structure in Asynchronous Discussion Boards. Sloan-C Conference November 7, 2008 Susan J. Wegmann, Ph. D. University of Central Florida Joyce McCauley, Ph. D. Sam Houston State University Michelle Glover, University of Central Florida.

azize
Download Presentation

How much Structure is too Much?: Analysis of Structure in Asynchronous Discussion Boards

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How much Structure is too Much?: Analysis of Structure in Asynchronous Discussion Boards Sloan-C Conference November 7, 2008 Susan J. Wegmann, Ph. D. University of Central Florida Joyce McCauley, Ph. D. Sam Houston State University Michelle Glover, University of Central Florida

  2. Face-to-face InteractionsInitial Research • Initiate, Respond, Evaluate (IRE) pattern (Mehan, 1979) • Connected vs. Contrived stance

  3. * inquire * reassure students * encourage students to answer a question * illustrate a topic with a personal experience * initiate a topic * move a discussion forward * stop a discussion * change topic * agree and elaborate * gauge students' agreement/disagreement * give information * acknowledge answer * joke * inquire * resist teacher's directions * answer questions (both teacher's and other students') * connect with other students * agree/disagree with teacher or student * express opinion * initiate a topic * clarify a topic * self-correct * joke * Wonder * Ask another question (to teacher and peer) Various moves possible in Connected Exchange include: Teacher Students

  4. What about online discourse? • How does structure influence the types of responses students offer? • How will the stance of online teachers/learners be influenced by the online platform? • What does interaction “look like” online?

  5. Typical first response “I agree with your explanation of how this theory applies to the writing process. I am interested in learning more about your writing workshop. I teach 1st grade and want to make this year as language rich as possible for the children. Several of my students are learning to write and I would like to extend this. Do you have any suggestions or beginning activities to introduce this?”

  6. Four types of Online Interaction • learner-teacher • learner-content • learner-learner • learner-interface (Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994).

  7. When students think deeply and engage fully with: • their reading • their peers • their teachers • the computer. • Social Presence And show deep, engaged, challenging interactions, we called this a connected stance.

  8. CONTRIVED STANCE • I have read your introduction and I am so pleased to be in this learning community with you. My God bless your future endeavors

  9. In answer. . . • Structuring discussion boards • Respond, react, reply • Examples • Rubric • End with a question

  10. Comparison of moves in two interaction patterns

  11. Current Study • Data Sources: • Discussion board entries, 2 universities, 2 graduate level reading courses, 45 students total • End of term survey (addressing each of the four types of interaction) • Informal interviews with students • Student evaluations

  12. Codes of Moves 1 Introducing a new topic 2/3 Sharing opinion and/orSharing beliefs (about teaching–“students learn best when…”) 4Connecting to other readings 5 Connecting to their own experiences 6Connecting to their own classroom 7Connecting to their own thinking 8 Building rapport 9 Suggesting a new organizational theme 10 Revealing their own struggles 11 Responding to other peer’s question 12 Giving information 13 Giving advice 14 Connecting to previous thought 15 Questioning 16 Giving an example 17 Sharing “grand idea” not related to own experience or own classroom 18 Challenging peer 19 Connecting to course content 20 Humor

  13. Spectrum of Moves – Lower to higher order 8 Building rapport 12 Giving information 17 Sharing a "grand idea" 16 Giving an example 13 Giving advice 14 Connecting to a previous thought 1 Introducing a new topic 11 Responding to a peer's question 19 Connecting to course content 2/3 sharing opinion/belief 4 connecting to other readings 5 connecting to their own experiences 6 Connecting to their own classrooms 9 Suggesting a new organizational theme 15 Questioning 18 Challenging a peer 20 Using humor 7 Connecting to their own thinking (reflection) 10 revealing their own struggles

  14. Wegmann, Unstructured Db, Percentages N=156

  15. Moves in Wegmann’s unstructured Db 17 – Sharing a “grand idea” 2,3 - Sharing opinions, beliefs 12 - Giving information 1 - Introducing a new topic 8 - Building rapport 19 - Connecting to course content 10 - Revealing their own struggles 16 - Giving an example 20 - Humor 6 - Connecting to their own classroom

  16. Wegmann, Structured Db, Percentages N=574

  17. Moves in Wegmann’s Structured Db 2,3 - Sharing an opinion 8 – Building rapport 1 – Initiating a topic 14 – Connecting to a previous thought 12 – Giving Information 17 – Sharing “grand ideas” 6 – Connecting to their own classroom 15 – Questioning 19 – Connecting to course content 10 – Revealing their own struggles

  18. Comparison of Wegmann’s Structured and Unstructured Db Moves:

  19. Moves in McCauley’s unstructured Db 6 - Connecting to their own classroom 16 - Giving an example 17 - Sharing a “grand idea” 19 - Connecting to course content 2/3 - Sharing opinion and Sharing beliefs 6 - Connecting to their own classroom/school 12 - Giving information 10 - Revealing their own struggles 14 – Connecting to a previous thought 7 – Connecting to their own thinking/reflecting

  20. Moves in McCauley’s structured Db 2/3 - Sharing opinion and Sharing beliefs 14 – Connecting to a previous thought 15 – Questioning/wondering 17 - Sharing a “grand idea” 16 - Giving an example 8 - Building rapport 19 - Connecting to course content 10 - Revealing their own struggles 6 - Connecting to their own classroom/school 12 - Giving information

  21. Comparison of McCauley's Structured and Unstructured Db Moves:

  22. Moves across all 4 Discussion Boards

  23. Quadrants for the Connected/Disconnected Spectrum

  24. Closer look at one student - LINDA • Kindergarten teacher • 4 years of experience • 26 years old • Average graduate candidate • “It is hard for me to write because I don’t feel like I am very good. I am starting to get into writing again because of this class and I am able to express myself.”

  25. LINDA’S POSTINGS • Unstructured -15 coded statements • 20% giving examples • 20% connecting to her own classroom • 20% sharing her beliefs & opinions • 13% connecting to course content • 13% giving information 86% 405 total words (16% interaction with colleagues)

  26. Structured (beginning) – 32 coded statements • 20% sharing her beliefs & opinions • 13% giving examples • 13% connecting to a previous thought • 9% connecting to her own classroom • 9% questioning/wondering • 9% connecting to course content • 6% sharing a grand idea • 6% revealing own struggles 85% 935 total words (70% interactions with colleagues)

  27. Structured (end) – 58 coded statements • 16% sharing her beliefs & opinions • 12% giving examples • 10% connecting to a previous thought • 10% connecting course content • 9% building rapport • 9% connecting to her own classroom • 7% revealing own struggles • 5% introducing a new topic • 5% sharing grand ideas • 3% challenging a peer 86% 1464 words (70% interactions with colleagues)

  28. Connected stance example: “You bring up an interesting point. When you write about learning Spanish as a child, you tell of the expectation in your home that family members learn and communicate in Spanish. You were encouraged as a toddler to speak Spanish and you found your needs were met when you did. I wonder if we should further consider the effects of family and/or cultural expectations as we think about the stages of Whitehead's Theory of Learning. Many children work hard to please their parents. A large percentage of students go to college whose parents expect them to go. Kids who are told they will be good at math usually are. But what about the flip side: What about children whose families say no one in our family is good at reading? Or math? Or school? People in our family don't go to college. Or don't graduate from high school. Everyone in our family fails at least one grade.

  29. Continued… I was wondering about this and read an article that gave statistics of low achievers and dropouts. Guess what! Most in these categories are minority groups. My question is how do we show these students the romance stage of writing? They probably won’t accept our assurances that being able to write well will help them down the road. Can we instill the romance that will be necessary before moving into the precision stage, or is that family/cultural effect too powerful?”

  30. Case Study Analysis • Responses changed: • Unstructured: • 86% of 405 words were only 5 moves • Only 16% were interactions with colleagues • Structured: • 935 words and 8 different moves • 70% were interactions with colleagues • Ending posts: • 1464 words made10 moves • 70% were interactions with colleagues

  31. Implications from this data • The more of the right kind of structure, • The more the students wrote. • The more variety of students’ responses • The more often a Connected stance was assumed

  32. Quadrants for the Connected/Disconnected Spectrum

  33. Future Analysis and Implications for Practice • Role of Instructor • Explicit with moves? • Analyze the Moves on Bloom’s taxonomy • Characteristics of students’ personalities • The Engagement and participation connection

  34. Envisioning asynchronous discussion assignments. . .

  35. References Burnette, G., & Buerkle, H. (2004). Information exchange in virtual communities: A comparative study. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 9(2). Retrieved June 14, 2006, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol9/issue2/burnett.html. Britton, J. (1993). Language and Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Lao, T., & Gonzales, C. (2005) Understanding online learning through a qualitative description of professors and students' experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13 (3), 459-74. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Moore, M. (1980). Independent study. In Redefining the Discipline of Adult Education, Ed. Boyd, R., J.W. Apps, and Associates, 16-31. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Saba, F., & Shearer, R. L. (1994) Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1). 36-57. Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Calvin, J., Overtoom, C., & Wheaton, J. E. (2005)Bridging the Transactional Distance Gap in Online Learning Environments. The American Journal of Distance Education,19, (2), 105.

More Related