Building a Connected Stance: Motivation and

Engagement in Asynchronous Discussion

BoardsSloan-C Conference

October 29, 2009

Susan J. Wegmann, Ph. D.swegmann@mail.ucf.eduUniversity 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

* 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)

Teacher Students

Comparison of moves in two interaction patterns

Disconnected stance (Initiate, respond, evaluate pattern)

Connected stance pattern in one Response/ reaction group

responding to teacher Questioningclarifying response correcting response

Introducing a new topicsharing opinion sharing beliefs connecting to other readingsconnecting to their own experiencesconnecting to their own classroomconnecting to their own thinking introducing a new topicbuilding rapportsuggesting a new organizational themerevealing their own strugglesresponding to other peer’s question

K

R

I

S

T

Y

MICHAEL

TRACI

MARY ANN

CAROLYN

FRANNIE

C

L

A

S

S

11 hours later

22.5 hours later

1 day/13.5 hours later

2 days/9 hours later

2 days/11 hours later

9 days/1 hour later

Feb. 11, 9:45 pm

QUESTION

Introducing and new topic; sharing opinion; connecting to other readings; sharing opinion; sharing beliefs

How does Calkins’ work “fit” with what you know about teaching writing in classrooms?”

Connecting to their own experiences; intro a new topic; sharing opinion; sharing beliefs; connecting to their own thinking

Building rapport; sharing opinion; connecting to their own classroom; connecting to other readings; sharing opinion; wondering; connecting to other readings; posing question to the class

Building rapport; sharing opinion; connecting to their own thinking; revealing their own struggles

Suggesting a new organizational scheme; sharing opinion; connecting to other readings; responding to other peer’s question

Connecting to other readings

KRISTY

Building rapport; sharing opinion; connecting with own thinking

What about online discourse?

1. How does structure influence the number and length of postings that students offer?

2. 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 Moves1 Introducing a new topic

2/3 Sharing opinion and/or Sharing 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

Wegmann’s Unstructured

McCauley’s Unstructured

Wegmann’s Structured

McCauley’s Structured

17 “Grand ideas”6 Connecting to their own

classroom 2,3 Sharing opinions/beliefs 2/3 Sharing Opinions/Beliefs

12 Giving information 16 Giving an example 8 Building rapport14 Connecting to a previous

thought

2,3 Sharing opinion/beliefs 17 Sharing a “grand idea” 1 Initiating a new topic 15 Questioning

1 Initiating a new topic19 Connecting to course

content14 Connecting to a previous thought 17 Sharing a “grand idea”

8 Building rapport 2/3 Sharing Opinions/Beliefs 12 Giving Information 16 Giving an example

19 Connecting to course content 12 Giving information 17 “Grand ideas” 8 Building rapport

10 Revealing their own struggles

10 Revealing their own struggles

6 Connecting to their own classroom

19 Connecting to course content

16 Giving an example14 Connecting to a previous

thought 15 Questioning10 Revealing their own

struggles

20 Using humor7 Connecting to their own

thinking19 Connecting to course content

6 Connecting to their own classroom

6 Connecting to their own classroom 8 Building rapport

10 Revealing their own struggles 12 Giving information

Moves across all 4 Discussion Boards

5 20

1050

400

5 15

650

50

McCauley’s Students Wegmann’s Students

Quadrants for the Connected/Disconnected Spectrum

Low Engagement,

High Participation

Connected Stance

High Engagement,

High Participation

Disconnected Stance

Low Engagement,

Low Participation

High Engagement,

Low Participation

Number of Moves Enacted

Num

ber

of w

ords

use

d

Implications

By promoting a Connected stance:–Transactional Distance is

decreased.–Social presence is

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 RubricExpected Level of Competence2 point

Moving Toward Expected Level1 point

Not Acceptable0 points

Content Understanding (comprehension of the content under discussion)

The student understands significant ideas relevant to the issue under discussion. This is indicated by correct use of terminology, precise selection of the pieces of information required to make a point, correct and appropriate use of examples and counterexamples, demonstrations of which distinctions are important to make, and explanations that are concise and to the point.

Information and knowledge are accurate.

The student elaborates statements with accurate explanations, reasons, or evidence.

Ideas are reasonably clear, but the listener needs to make some guesses as to what the student meant.

Some vocabulary is used correctly and some is not.

Ideas are correct but not concise. Contributions to the group are

generally supported by some facts, examples, analogies, statistics, and so forth, but there’s a sense that more is needed.

The student uses foundational knowledge incorrectly.

The student struggles to provide ideas or support for ideas.

Ideas are extremely limited or hard to understand.

The student has difficulty understanding themes and distinguishing main ideas and supporting details.

Terminology is used incorrectly.

Expected Level of Competence2 point

Moving Toward Expected Level1 point

Not Acceptable0 points

Reasoning (ability to use the content to explore an issue, answer a question, make a decision, or discuss a point)

The student actively stimulates and sustains inquiry by asking thoughtful questions.

The student has a clear idea of the topic under discussion and sustains inquiry until in order to explore relevant issues.

The student stipulates claims or definitions (e.g., “For our discussion, let’s agree that prior knowledge refers to BOTH overall and specific knowledge.”). The student realizes when such stipulations are needed.

The student recognizes values or value conflict as things that form the assumption basis of arguments and recognizes when it is important to acknowledge these values.

The student argues by analogy. The student recognizes the accuracy, logic, relevance,

or clarity of statements. The student recognizes contradictions and irrelevant comments.

The student asks clarifying questions and knows when clarifying questions need to be asked.

The student distinguishes fact from opinion. The student summarizes points of agreement and

disagreement to set the stage for further movement; the student knows when such summaries are useful.

The student relies on the momentum of the group to motivate inquiry.

The student generally distinguishes fact from opinions.

The student may be repetitive with comments.

The student takes a position but with little evidence or explanation.

The student accepts ideas of others without much thought.

The student jumps randomly from one aspect of an issue to another.

The student provides little relevant information or contributes little to the discussion.

Opinions may be stated as facts.

The student shows little evidence of understanding the topic under discussion and how to sustain the inquiry to adequately explore issues related to it.

There is little sense of which information is of most importance.

Discussion board Rubric (cont)

Expected Level of Competence2 point

Moving Toward Expected Level1 point

Not Acceptable0 points

Interaction with Others The student initiates the dialogue with thoughtful and reflective comments and questions.

The interactions of the student are appropriate for educators in a graduate setting.

The student invites contributions from others as needed and the student knows when such contributions are needed.

The student acknowledges the statements of others in a way that builds a consecutive interchange between participants.

Replies to others are responsive to the statement and indicate that the student understood it and thought about it.

When disagreeing, the student does it respectfully. The nature of the disagreement is stated and an invitation to respond extended.

The student encourages a variety of points of view.

The student is courteous and attentive

The student is aware of cultural differences in social interactions and behaves in an appropriate fashion.

When conflicts arise, the student attempts to resolve them.

The student is aware of the value of group input and decision making.

The student attends to the discussion but contributes little new knowledge or ideas.

The student’s contributions do not detract from the discussions.

The student participates in the group but does little to involve others or encourage others to think critically.

The interactions of the student are inappropriate for educators in a graduate setting.

The student makes irrelevant or distracting statements.

Some comments are unconstructive and non-courteous.

The student makes a personal attack; language might suggest bias toward a group member or others.

The student does not contribute to the discussion.

The student appears unaware of cultural differences in conducting discussions.

Discussion does not take into consideration the ideas/comments by the group; there is little attempt at collaborative thinking.

Discussion board Rubric (cont)

Expected Level of Competence2 point

Moving Toward Expected Level1 point

Not Acceptable0 points

Language Conventions The student uses precise vocabulary and economical syntax. Words and syntax are purposefully chosen to make a point.

The student uses language that others in the group will understand.

The student defines or clearly explains language or concepts that might be unfamiliar to others; the student knows when such explanations might be necessary.

The student uses general vocabulary and tends to express ideas wordily.

Although correct, language might not be equally understandable to all members of the group.

The student uses language that others in the group are unlikely to understand.

Ideas appear disproportionately lengthy and are difficult to follow.

Language choices are vague, abstract, or trite. Jargon may be used when more precise language is needed.

Discussion board Rubric (cont)

Expected Level of Competence2 point

Moving Toward Expected Level1 point

Not Acceptable0 points

Mechanics The student shows mastery of academic English.

The student uses English conventionally without grammatical or typographical errors.

The student occasionally misspells words and makes grammatical errors.

The student frequently misspells words and makes grammatical errors.

Discussion board Rubric (cont)

ReferencesAlthaus, S.L. (1997). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiement with 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:An Experimental 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.Community College 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.