Perfecting Interaction in Blended Courses through Discourse Analysis


Published on

Presentation at 2012 Sloan-C Blended Conference and Workshop in Milwaukee, WI

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Press F5 or enter presentation mode to view the poll\r\nIn an emergency during your presentation, if the poll isn't showing, navigate to this link in your web browser:\r\n you like, you can use this slide as a template for your own voting slides. You might use a slide like this if you feel your audience would benefit from the picture showing a text message on a phone.
  • Perfecting Interaction in Blended Courses through Discourse Analysis

    1. 1. Perfecting Interaction in BlendedCourses through Discourse Analysis Susan Wegmann, Ph.D. Kelvin Thompson, Ed.D University of Central Florida
    2. 2.
    3. 3. Why Are We Here?• “Interaction” in blended courses = wild west• Discourse analysis methods (f2f/online) – > collect/analyze blended discourse data – > learn about effective blended interactions• Today’s Agenda – Summarize research literature – Share easy-to-use tools – Invitation to participate • Practitioner • Research collaborator
    4. 4. Web Interactions• Polls interspersed throughout – Text messaging (send code to 37607) – Twitter (tweet code to @poll) – Web site (specific url) – Specific codes to use for each response option on each poll• Twitter – Conference hashtag: #blend12 – Tweet about this session: #blendgage – Tweet us: @SusanWegmann @kthompso 4
    5. 5. Via web:
    6. 6. Discourse Analysis Primer• Oral discourse (See – Traditionally audio recorded and transcribed – Text coded (“moves”) and analyzed for themes – Ideally, more researchers: inter-rater reliability• Online discourse (See – Typically occurs via text – Text coded (“moves”) and analyzed for themes – Ideally, more researchers: inter-rater reliability
    7. 7. The Connected Stance• Line of discourse analysis research initiated by Wegmann & McCauley (2007, 2010)• Relationship between student academic performance and discourse contributions – Contributions = participation + engagement – Participation = amount contributed – Engagement = richness of contributions• Purposive sampling: High, middle, low perform
    8. 8. Connected Stance “Moves”• Standard themes for coding• Purposes for student contributions• How students use language – May be simplistic or more complex – May be self-referencing or dialogical – May range from functional to sophisticated – Currently 24 “moves” tracked (extensible)
    9. 9. Moves Delineated• Introducing a new topic • Connecting to a previous thought• Sharing opinion • Questioning (or wondering)• Sharing beliefs • Giving an example• Connecting to other readings • Sharing “Grand idea”• Connecting to own experiences • Challenging a peer• Connecting to their own • Connecting to course content classrooms • Using humor• Connecting to their own thinking • Couches reply to inform audience• Building rapport • Leading up to a conclusion• Suggesting organizational theme • Drawing a conclusion• Revealing their own struggles • Challenging course content• Responding to a peer’s question• Giving information• Giving advice
    10. 10. Connected Stance Process1. Rank order students by cumulative grade2. Compile written discourse from H, M, L students3. Paste text into two columned chart4. Code student text fragments using “moves”5. Repeat with additional rater(s)6. Tally number of words each student used7. Tally number of moves each student used8. Construct a quadrant graph (moves at bottom, number of words vertically)9. Plot H, M, L students on graph
    11. 11. Connected Stance Findings• Higher performing students generally contribute more to discourse and use language for more varied purposes than lower performing students = (The Connected Stance)• Instructor intervention/facilitation can affect change toward a Connected Stance (higher participation/higher engagement) profile – 3Rs (respond, react, reply) – explicit written criteria
    12. 12. Connected Stance Status• Qualitative data time consuming to collect/analyze (especially f2f)• Inter-rater reliability is a challenge• Revised Approach – Level 2: Existing Robust Methods – Level 1: New Expedited Process (SCOPe) • Fewer “meta moves” • Increased ease of use • Increased reliability
    13. 13. SCOPe of Interactions• 24 “moves” consolidated to 4 “meta-moves”• Language usage in interactions that are: – Self-referencing – Content-referencing – Other- referencing – Platform-referencing• Worksheet tallies rather than robust analysis• See examples:
    14. 14. SCOPe Process1. Rank order students by cumulative grade2. Tally meta-moves by H, M, L students3. Worksheet proxy calculations for f2f word count4. Repeat with additional rater(s)5. Follow worksheet to construct quadrant graph6. Plot H, M, L students on graph7. See
    15. 15. Some Research Questions We Have• Under what f2f conditions with “The Connected Stance” findings manifest?• What particular classroom interaction techniques are associated with higher student engagement f2f?• Are student behaviors associated with engagement consistent between online and f2f contexts of a blended course? That is, are students who are highly engaged online also highly engaged f2f?
    16. 16. Practitioner Recommendations• Focus initially on courses in which interaction is deliberately facilitated (majority of class involved)• Establish course (4+ weeks) before using SCOPe – Avoids orientation issues re: expectations – Allows time for interventions
    17. 17. How Can You Get Involved?• Get on mailing list for info/updates:• Use SCOPe to examine interactions in blended course -> inform teaching practice• Design your own research project using Connected Stance/SCOPe models – We’d be happy to assist!
    19. 19. ContactDr. Susan Kelvin