AERA 2005
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

AERA 2005

on

  • 342 views

Slides from talk given at 2011 EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) Annual Conference on research conducted about UTK instructional technology research support program - Project RITE.

Slides from talk given at 2011 EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) Annual Conference on research conducted about UTK instructional technology research support program - Project RITE.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
342
Views on SlideShare
340
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://www.visualcv.com 2

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

AERA 2005 AERA 2005 Presentation Transcript

  • Analyzing Ed Psych Case Studies: Effective Online Group Interactions Trena Paulus, Ph.D. Gina Roberts, Ed.D. University of Tennessee
  • Purpose
    • Investigate the discourse style of two groups of preservice teachers, one more successful and one less successful, as they completed a one-week online case study analysis task.
      • How do preservice teachers approach the task?
      • What is the focus of their discussions?
      • What discourse strategies do they use?
      • What recommendations can be made for the design of these tasks?
  • Theoretical Framework
    • Case studies in teacher education
      • Improvement of problem-solving and decision-making skills
      • Engagement in reflection and analysis
    • Obstacles to face-to-face case study implementation
      • Time to dedicate to case discussion
      • Lack of physical space conducive to discussion
      • Necessity for teacher to facilitate multiple small groups
  • Theoretical Framework
    • Potential advantages of online environment
      • Anytime, anyplace access to case materials and communication tools
      • Archival of transcripts for review
      • Offers greater opportunity for reflection
      • Possibly greater equality of participation
    • Challenge
      • How best to structure, facilitate and assess online discussions
  • Context
    • Students assigned to groups to complete three case study analyses over the course of a fifteen week educational psychology course
      • Same groups for entire semester
      • One week to complete each case discussion
      • Blackboard discussion board tool
      • Groups were self-facilitated
      • No roles were assigned
  • Context
      • Guidelines for participation were provided, instructor was available to answer questions
      • Grades were assigned by instructor based on overall quality of the analysis
      • At the end of each case study students wrote reflections on their participation in the task
  • Method
    • Most successful and least successful group on the first case were chosen for analysis
      • Four students per group: 3 females, 1 male
    • Transcripts of the groups’ case study asynchronous discussions downloaded into word processing documents from Blackboard™
    • Case study approach with cross-case analysis
  • Method
    • Analysis framework: Boothe and Hulten (2003)
    • Unitized messages into functional moves
    • Computer-mediated discourse analysis
      • Participation and overall group approach to task
      • Focus
      • Discourse strategies
      • Contributions to the learning process
    • Triangulated with individual reflections
  • Findings Group M – more successful Group L – less successful
  • Participation and overall group approach to task Group M: Messages and Functional Moves 100 41 100 30 34% 14 30% 9 Robert 20% 8 17% 5 Ann 24% 10 27% 8 Mary 22% 9 27% 8 Jean Percentage Functional moves Percentage Messages Participant
  • Participation and overall group approach to task Group L: Messages and Functional Moves 100 8 Total 12% 1 Deborah 25% 2 Julie 25% 2 Angie 38% 3 Eddie Percentage Messages and functional moves Participant
  • Focus of the discussion Content, Social and Administrative Moves 49 (100%) 15 9 25 Total 8 (100%) 3 (38%) 0 (0%) 5 (62%) Group L 41 (100%) 12 (29%) 9 (22%) 20 (49%) Group M Total Administrative/ logistics Social Content
  • Discourse strategies and contributions to the learning process Participatory Contributions 23 6 (30% of total content related contributions) 17 (29% of total content related contributions) Total 4 1 3 Invite 5 0 5 Encourage 7 2 5 Mitigate 7 3 4 Acknowledge Total Group L Group M Category
  • Discourse strategies and contributions to the learning process Factual contributions 36 9 (45% of total content related contributions) 27 (47% of total content related contributions) Total 0 0 0 Answer 0 0 0 Ask 3 2 1 Restate 6 2 4 Extend 7 0 7 Support 20 5 15 Claim Total Group L Group M Category
  • Discourse strategies and contributions to the learning process Reflective Contributions 16 5 (25% of total content related contributions) 11 (19% of total content related contributions) Total 0 0 0 Respond to challenge 1 1 0 Challenge 2 1 1 Disagree 13 3 10 Agree Total Group L Group M Category
  • Discourse strategies and contributions to the learning process Learning Contributions 3 0 (0%) 3 (5% of total content related contributions) Total 0 0 0 Resolve 3 0 3 Learn Total Group L Group M Category
  • Participant Reflections
    • Building trust
      • Committed to task
      • Fear of social loafers
    • Appreciating multiple perspectives
      • Need for one ‘right answer’
      • Value of discussing ideas together
  • Conclusions
    • Group members participated equally
    • Cooperated rather than collaborated
    • Successful group exchanged more messages, responded more, socialized more, supported each other and supported their claims with evidence
    • Little to no challenges or questioning
  • Implications
    • Epistemological stance
    • Building trust
    • Design of the case study task
    • Dialogue for learning
  • Limitations
    • Only 2 groups
    • Only 1 st of the three case studies
    • Only the asynchronous tool
    • Naturalistic generalization only