• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Building a Connected Stance: Motivation and Engagement in Asynchronous Discussion Boards Sloan C
 

Building a Connected Stance: Motivation and Engagement in Asynchronous Discussion Boards Sloan C

on

  • 2,423 views

This presentation was delivered Oct. 29, 2009 at the Sloan C conference in Orlando. It presents a description of the Connected Stance and the moves that occur during the enactment of a connected ...

This presentation was delivered Oct. 29, 2009 at the Sloan C conference in Orlando. It presents a description of the Connected Stance and the moves that occur during the enactment of a connected stance.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,423
Views on SlideShare
2,423
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
30
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Building a Connected Stance: Motivation and Engagement in Asynchronous Discussion Boards Sloan C Building a Connected Stance: Motivation and Engagement in Asynchronous Discussion Boards Sloan C Presentation Transcript

    • Building a Connected Stance: Motivation and Engagement in Asynchronous Discussion Boards
      Sloan-C Conference
      October 29, 2009
      Susan J. Wegmann, Ph. D.
      swegmann@mail.ucf.edu
      University of Central Florida
      Joyce McCauley, Ph. D.
      Sam Houston State University
      mccauley@shsu.edu
    • Face-to-face InteractionsInitial Research
      Initiate, Respond, Evaluate (IRE) pattern (Mehan, 1979)
      Connected vs. Disconnected stance
    • Moves in Connected Exchange
      Teacher
      Students
      * 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)
    • Comparison of moves in two interaction patterns
    • What about online discourse?
      How does structure influence the number and length of postings that students offer?
      What was the substance of students’ responses in online asynchronous discussion boards?
      3. How do the moves found in online discussions reveal a connected discourse?
    • Four types of Online Interaction
      • learner-teacher
      • learner-content
      • learner-learner
      • learner-interface
      (Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994).
    • When students think deeply and engage fully with:
      their reading
      their peers
      their teachers
      the computer
      And show deep, engaged, challenging interactions, we called this a connected stance.
      Social Presence is enacted.
    • Disconnected 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”
    • 153 word initial posting
      “Good job”
      75 word initial posting
      “Keep up the good work”
      210 word initial posting
      “I like what you said”
      64 word posting
      “I agree with everything you said.”
    • In answer. . .
      Structuring discussion boards
      Open
      Experimental
      3R - Respond, react, reply
      Examples
      Rubric
      End with a question
    • Data Sources
      Discussion board entries, 2 universities, 2 graduate level reading courses, 32 students total
      End of term survey (addressing each of the four types of interaction)
      Informal interviews with students
      Student evaluations
    • Codes of Moves
      1 Introducing a new topic
      2/3 Sharing opinion and/orSharing beliefs
      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/Wondering
      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
    • Moves across all 4 Discussion Boards
    • McCauley’s Students
      Wegmann’s Students
      1050
      650
      15
      5
      20
      5
      400
      50
    • Quadrants for the Connected/Disconnected Spectrum
      Number of words used
      Number of Moves Enacted
    • Implications
      By promoting a Connected stance:
      Transactional Distanceis decreased.
      Social presenceis enhanced.
    • Future Analysis and Implications for Practice
      Role of Online Instructor
      Explicit with moves?
      Analyze the Moves on Bloom’s taxonomy
      What pairs and trios are visible
      Characteristics of students’ personalities/culture
    • Discussion board Rubric
    • Discussion board Rubric (cont)
    • Discussion board Rubric (cont)
    • Discussion board Rubric (cont)
    • Discussion board Rubric (cont)
    • References
      Althaus, S.L. (1997). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiementwith online discussions. Communication Education, 46, 158-174.
      Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rational for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4. (2). Retrieved on April 9, 2009 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230
      Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In M. Bakhtin (Ed.), Speech genres and other late essays. (pp. 60-102). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
      Bloom, B. (1975). Language development. In F. D. Horowitz (Ed.) Review of child development research, 4, (pp. 245-303). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
      Brewer, S. & Klein, J. (2004). Small group learning in an online asynchronous environment. Chicago, IL: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED484997)
      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.
      Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
      Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston: Heath.
      Dillon, M. (1994). Using discussion in classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
      Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1998). Transcript analysis of computer-mediated conferences as a tool for testing constructivist and social-constructivist learning theories. In Distance learning ‘98. Proceedings of the annual conference on distance teaching & learning (pp. 139–145). EDRS document ED 422854.
      Hull, D., & Saxon, T. (2009, April 1). Negotiation of Meaning and Co-Construction of Knowledge:AnExperimental Analysis of Asynchronous Online Instruction. Computers & Education, 52(3), 624-639. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ827663) Retrieved April 9, 2009, from ERIC database.
      Juwah, C. (2009). Interactions in Online Education: Implications for theory and practice. NY: Routledge.
      Jones, Q., Ravid, G., & Rafaeli, S. (2004, June). Information Overload and the Message Dynamics of Online Interaction Spaces: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Exploration. Information Systems Research, 15(2), 194-210. Retrieved April 9, 2009, doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0023
      Lambright, L. (1995) Creating a Dialogue: Socratic Seminars and Educational Reform. The entity from which ERIC acquires the content, including journal, organization, and conference names, or by means of online submission from the author.CommunityCollege Journal, 65. (4). 30-34.
      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.
    • McCrory, R., Putnam, R., & Jansen, A. (2008) Interaction in online courses for teacher education: Subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16. 155-180.
      Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
      Moore, M. (1980). Independent study. In Redefining the Discipline of Adult Education, Ed.
      Pena-Shaff, J.B. & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42, 243-265.
      Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9. (5). Retrieved December 12, 2008: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
      Russo, T. & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affect learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 54-62.
      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.
      Savenye, W.C. (2005). Improving online courses: What is interaction and why use it? Distance Learning, 2(6), 22-29.
      Swan, K., Shen, J, & Hiltz, S. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning. Journal for
      Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 45 – 62.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.
      Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2000) Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
      Stake, R. E. (1985). Case study. In J. Nisbet (Ed.), World yearbook of education, 1985: Research, policy, and practice. (pp. 277-301) London: Kogan Page.
      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
      Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
      Wegmann, S. & McCauley, J. (February, 2007). Can you hear us now: Stances toward online interaction and rapport. In Y. Inoue (Ed.), Online education for lifelong learning.
      Wegmann, S., & McCauley, J. (2008). How much structure is too much? Analysis of Structure in Asynchronous Discussion Boards. Paper presented at Sloan-C conference. November 7, 2008.
      Wilson, G., & Stacey, E. (2004). Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teach online. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20 (1), 33-48.