AERA 2005

338 views

Published on

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

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
338
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

AERA 2005

  1. 1. Analyzing Ed Psych Case Studies: Effective Online Group Interactions Trena Paulus, Ph.D. Gina Roberts, Ed.D. University of Tennessee
  2. 2. Purpose <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How do preservice teachers approach the task? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the focus of their discussions? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What discourse strategies do they use? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What recommendations can be made for the design of these tasks? </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Theoretical Framework <ul><li>Case studies in teacher education </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improvement of problem-solving and decision-making skills </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engagement in reflection and analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Obstacles to face-to-face case study implementation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Time to dedicate to case discussion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of physical space conducive to discussion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Necessity for teacher to facilitate multiple small groups </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Theoretical Framework <ul><li>Potential advantages of online environment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anytime, anyplace access to case materials and communication tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Archival of transcripts for review </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Offers greater opportunity for reflection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Possibly greater equality of participation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Challenge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How best to structure, facilitate and assess online discussions </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Context <ul><li>Students assigned to groups to complete three case study analyses over the course of a fifteen week educational psychology course </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Same groups for entire semester </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>One week to complete each case discussion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Blackboard discussion board tool </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Groups were self-facilitated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No roles were assigned </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Context <ul><ul><li>Guidelines for participation were provided, instructor was available to answer questions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Grades were assigned by instructor based on overall quality of the analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>At the end of each case study students wrote reflections on their participation in the task </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Method <ul><li>Most successful and least successful group on the first case were chosen for analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Four students per group: 3 females, 1 male </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Transcripts of the groups’ case study asynchronous discussions downloaded into word processing documents from Blackboard™ </li></ul><ul><li>Case study approach with cross-case analysis </li></ul>
  8. 8. Method <ul><li>Analysis framework: Boothe and Hulten (2003) </li></ul><ul><li>Unitized messages into functional moves </li></ul><ul><li>Computer-mediated discourse analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Participation and overall group approach to task </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discourse strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contributions to the learning process </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Triangulated with individual reflections </li></ul>
  9. 9. Findings Group M – more successful Group L – less successful
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. Participant Reflections <ul><li>Building trust </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Committed to task </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fear of social loafers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Appreciating multiple perspectives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need for one ‘right answer’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Value of discussing ideas together </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Conclusions <ul><li>Group members participated equally </li></ul><ul><li>Cooperated rather than collaborated </li></ul><ul><li>Successful group exchanged more messages, responded more, socialized more, supported each other and supported their claims with evidence </li></ul><ul><li>Little to no challenges or questioning </li></ul>
  19. 19. Implications <ul><li>Epistemological stance </li></ul><ul><li>Building trust </li></ul><ul><li>Design of the case study task </li></ul><ul><li>Dialogue for learning </li></ul>
  20. 20. Limitations <ul><li>Only 2 groups </li></ul><ul><li>Only 1 st of the three case studies </li></ul><ul><li>Only the asynchronous tool </li></ul><ul><li>Naturalistic generalization only </li></ul>

×