Aect sna presentation 2017
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•158 views
The document summarizes a study that examined the effects of assigning roles in online discussions. The study compared groups with and without assigned roles of starter, responder, and wrapper. Results showed that assigning roles: 1) Increased allocentric elaboration and decreased egocentric elaboration in discussion quality based on content analysis. 2) Had no significant impact on social presence, self-regulation, or academic achievement. 3) Decreased density and increased centralization in social network analysis, indicating assigned roles introduced more structure to interactions.
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Aect sna presentation 2017
Similar to Aect sna presentation 2017 (20)
More from Marx Library University of South Alabama
More from Marx Library University of South Alabama (10)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Aect sna presentation 2017
- 1. HELLO! Angela Doucet Rand, Ph.D. arand@southalabama.edu Gayle Davidson-Shivers, Ph.D. gvds@southalabama.edu University of South Alabama
- 2. Social Network Analysis of Online Discussions with Assigned Roles
- 3. Presentation Outline • Online Discussion • Social Presence • Assigned Roles • Study Design • Data Collection • Study Results • Implications for Online Instruction
- 4. Place your screenshot here Online discussions suffer when students make perfunctory comments. I agree! I agree! I agree!
- 5. Social processes are important to achieving quality online discussion.
- 7. General Research Questions 1. Do assigned roles affect group cohesion? 2. Do students follow instructions for using assigned roles? 3. Do assigned roles affect discussion quality? 4. Do assigned roles affect social presence? 5. Do assigned roles affect academic achievement?
- 8. Assigned Roles Starter Role Responder Role Wrapper Role
- 9. Mixed Methods Design • With Assigned Roles (WAR) n =19 • No Assigned Roles (NAR) n =13 • Week 1 – SRL-Q and Roles training • For six weeks the WAR group used assigned roles during discussions • The NAR group participated in a separate discussion forum
- 10. Data Collection Interviews with WAR group members Content Analysis: Online Learning Interaction Rubric (Ke & Xie, 2009) Self- Regulation for Learning (Black & Deci, 2000) Social Presence Questionnaire (Arbaugh et al., 2008) Social Network Analysis
- 12. Overall Chi square was statistically significant, X2(4) = 12.922, p<.05 Discussion Quality Chi square frequencies and adjusted residuals for KC categories Group S K1 K2 K3 K4 WAR 51 (.02) 41 (-3.14) 74 (3.01) 3 (.07) 12 (.07) NAR 48 (-.02) 65 (3.14) 44 (-3.01) 3 (.07) 11 (-.07) Note: S = social interaction; K1 = sharing information; K2 = egocentric elaboration; K3 = allocentric elaboration; K4 = application and transfer. (Xie & Ke, 2011). Frequencies are displayed in Table 7 with adjusted residuals in parentheses.
- 13. Social Presence Results for social presence questionnaire t test between groups. Group M SD SE WAR (n=19) 3.765 1.077 .261 NAR (n=13) 3.538 1.030 .285 [t (28) = –.58, p > .05]
- 14. Academic Achievement An independent samples t test indicated no significant difference between the two groups (t (29) = –.506, p >.05). Final course grades means were similar for the WAR group (M = 95.16, SD = 3.84) and the NAR group (M = 94.39, SD = 4.67).
- 16. Cohesion The degree of connectedness in a network. Centralization The extent to which individuals are connected. Density The amount of overall connections in a network.
- 17. Density Network Density Values While Using Roles, After Withdrawal of Roles, and Overall Density for Each Group Group Density Weeks 2 – 6 Weeks 7-11 Weeks 2 –11 WAR .405 .412 .621 NAR .744 .667 .673
- 18. Centralization Network Centralization Values While Using Roles, After Withdrawal of Roles, and Overall Density for Each Group Group Centralization Weeks 2 – 6 Weeks 7-11 Weeks 2 – 11 WAR .381 .311 .277 NAR .188 .271 .264
- 19. Network Visualizations (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005) Star Line Circle
- 20. WAR diagram for weeks two through six. NAR diagram for weeks two through six. Weeks 2-6
- 21. WAR diagram for weeks seven through eleven. NAR group for weeks seven through eleven. Weeks 7-11
- 22. WAR diagram for weeks two through eleven. NAR diagram for weeks two through eleven. Weeks 2-11
- 23. Limitations ◉Small sample size ◉Graduate students in the College of Education ◉Students were enrolled in a research methods course ◉The course instructor also assigned a discussion forum
- 24. Conclusion ◉Assigned roles seems to have indirectly impacted interactions. ◉Assigned roles introduced structure with instruction on social behaviors. ◉SNA was exploratory; it did reveal interaction characteristics not apparent through other data analysis methods.
- 25. Future Research • SNA at the individual level to acquire additional insight about core and peripheral positions in social networks. • Future studies will use other (COI) roles with larger sample sizes.
- 26. THANKS! Any questions? You can find me at @allonsdanser / arand@southalabama.edu
- 27. CREDITS Special thanks to all the people who made and released these awesome resources for free: ◉ Presentation template by SlidesCarnival ◉ Photographs by Unsplash
Editor's Notes
- Hello, I’m Angela and I want to thank Dr. Gayle Davidson-Shivers for helping me get through this research study.
- This was my dissertation study. I used assigned roles to increase social presence in an online graduate course. The goal was to influence discussion quality and develop group cohesion.
- Today I’m reporting on the results of the study.
- Discussion is important to learning but students online often do not participate in a meaningful way.
- Goal: increase social presence: Social Presence is the ability of an individual to project a sense of personal realness into a virtual learning environment and to sense others’ projected social presence. Significance of the study: When social presence is established, students may openly share their experiences, learn from one another, and develop a shared sense of achieving the learning goals.
- There were 5 general research questions. In this presentation I will focus on number 1 – do assigned roles affect group cohesion?
- I developed training for three social roles. The roles purpose was to guide students’ social behavior in the text-based online discussion environment. The training included some dialogue templates to use when posting. Templates modeled what was expected of the students when they posted. Use of templates were optional and students were encouraged to be creative in using them. Starter role responsibilities: Make the initial post that encourages peers to share their own ideas about the topic being discussed. Use positive tone. “get the conversation going so students could reply” Responder role responsibilities: Encourage peers to contribute and to provide positive feedback; strive to engage most of the students in the discussion. “draw out students who had not yet responded” Wrapper role responsibilities: Write a synthesis of the week’s discussion, to include direct references to contributions made by other participants, and on how the comment related to the learning goal. “report on who contributed to some new understanding”
- Both groups had the same discussion questions. In the WAR group, 3 different people held roles of starter, responder, wrapper for each week of the study (6 weeks). Training materials were provided to all students in the WAR group and again when their week to use a role was scheduled. Roles were faded after week six but students were told they could continue to use them if they so desired.
- Interviews conducted in person, over the phone, and via email – Did students use the roles and did they like using roles Content Analysis – were there differences in knowledge construction levels between groups. Self-Regulation for Learning Questionnaire assess online learning motivation – participants were graduate students Social Presence Questionnaire – self report of perceptions of social presence. Social Network Analysis – assess network (group) level cohesion: assessed group density and centralization.
- 12 responded that the training was easy to accomplish 10 liked the training 6 said the templates and examples were helpful Wrapper roles was most beneficial but also the hardest role to perform; those without the wrapper role also thought it was the most useful role. Negative responses: 2 students reported that the roles made the conversation feel fake. Hard to be the starter when others posted before the starter could post.
- Did roles influence discussion quality? The majority of posts made by the group With Assigned Roles were in the K2 category which indicates egocentric elaboration of argument or concept. By contrast, the majority of posts written by the No Assigned Roles were in the K1 category which indicates they were adding facts, opinions, or questions without elaboration. The structure of introducing assigned roles
- Did the use of roles influence the development of social presence? A t test revealed no significant difference for Social Presence between the WAR and the NAR groups.
- Did assigned roles influence academic achievement? A t test revealed no significant difference for Academic Achievement between the WAR and the NAR groups.
- Social network analysis was conducted to observe and analyze participation patterns in online discussions. In online discussions, understanding who participates and with whom, can provide information about the knowledge construction process.
- Social Network Analysis describes interactions and connections. Cohesive networks have many direct and indirect connections between individuals so that information flows easily. Cohesion indicators are determined by density and centralization measures. High density networks have many individuals connected to many other individuals. A network with high centralization indicates that one or more individuals are closely connected and others are less cloasely connected.
- Density is the The amount of overall connections in a network. High density networks have many individuals connected to many other individuals. Density was higher in the NAR group compared to the WAR group.
- In the WAR group, centralization was higher than in the NAR group. This indicates that one or more individuals held influential positions in the network. In the NAR group, no single person or group held a dominant position in the network.
- Visualization of the networks offers the opportunity to observe the flow of interactions. Network diagrams consist of nodes to represent participants and lines to represent interactions between participants. It provides a qualitative view of the network’s characteristics. Expectations: Using the centralization metric, a centralization value of 1 will take the shape of a star, indicating that one node is central in comparison to other nodes in the network. The central node is an information conduit.
- Assigned roles influenced the quality of online discussions as indicated by the differences between the groups in the categories of KC posts. Assigned roles influenced interactions as indicated by the SNA star-shaped network formed by the WAR group.