Transcript Online Dialog: What if You Build it and They Don’t Come?

Analysis of Student Learning in
Global Change
Eugene S. Takle1, Heather Moser1,
and Elsebeth K. Sorensen2
1Iowa
State University, Ames, IA
2Alborg University, Denmark
[email protected]
Outline
•
•
•
•
Context for Dialog
Theoretical Background
Dialog Implementation Strategies
Diagnosis by “Theory of Language
Games”
• Evaluation of student learning
Context for Dialog
• Global Change course
– 3 credit , senior-level, on-campus or remote
– 42 GC topics (1 each MWF), 3 5-week blocks
– Online with dialog since 1995
– Currently enrolls 50 students from 23 disciplines
• Course publicly available:
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse
Characteristics of
“Structure-less” Dialog
•
•
•
•
•
•
Superficial remarks
Off-the-cuff comments
Personal agendas
Religious fervor
Cutsey comments
Occasional glimmer of critical thinking
The Challenge:
How do we stimulate
learning in online dialog?
Theoretical Framework:
Learning in Virtual Environments
• Wenger (1998) : true collaborative learning
occurs through “negotiation of meaning”
• Sorensen and Takle (2002)
– mutual exploration of issues
– mutual examination of arguments, agreements,
and disagreements
– mutual questioning of positions
– dynamic interaction
– weaving of ideas
– convergence of perspectives
“Genuine Collaboration”
“Genuine collaboration” (Salomon,
1995) is a condition of “genuine
interdependence” between individuals
that calls for
– sharing knowledge/information
– adopting complementary roles
– a “pooling together of minds”
So how do we structure
our virtual environment
for dialog to ensure that
learning takes place?
I.
Active Participation
Although some learning occurs in
passive observation, active
participation is essential for true
collaborative learning
Put requirements on minimum number
of postings:
6 per block
Table 1. A = # students, B = # comments per student
per learning unit, C = #comments per student per block.
____________________________________________
Year
A
B
C
____________________________________________
1995
32 0.069 1.0
1996
31 0.106 1.6
1997
32 0.350 5.3
1998
33 0.390 5.9
1999
26 0.320 4.8
2000
45 0.480 7.2
2001
44 0.382 5.7
2002
46 0.528 7.6
____________________________________________
Result:
Increased volume of
comments, but content of
comments was shallow and
did not give evidence of
critical thinking
II. Quality
• Define critical thinking skills (CTS), give
examples, and demand that student dialog
must demonstrate CTS
• Implement an online threaded dialog structure
that requires student to state, in advance of
posting, the CTS being used
• Ask student in end-of-block self assessment to
defend their use of CTS
Elements of the Virtual
Portfolio
Research
Paper
Student Products
Calc
Calc
Research
Paper
Simulation
Simulation
Quiz
Quiz
Dialog
Disc.
Sum.
Dialog
Time
Disc.
Sum.
Web
Search
Web
Search
Hypothesis
Exam
Hypoth.
Hypothesis
Animation
Exam
Animation
Block 1
Block 2
Student Products
Elements of the Virtual
Portfolio
Time
Block 1
Block 2
Student Products
Elements of the Virtual
Portfolio
Time
Evaluate
Block 1
Process
Block 2
Result:
By a subjective measure (0-10),
quality went from 4.4 (1995) to
3.2 (1997) to 5.3 (2000)
It worked, but online entries
became a collection of
monologs
III. Action-Reaction
Require students to respond to 3
other students per block and to elicit
comments from 3 other students per
block.
Require one “social” or “communitybuilding” comment per block.
Table 2. Comparison of comment characteristics
when requirements for social comments were added.
___________________________________________
2001 2002
Chg(%)
___________________________________________
Number of students
44
46
+4
Required # of posts/st.
15
18
+20
Total number of posts
760 1,045
+38
Actual # posts/student
17.3
22.7
+31
% actual to required
115
126
+10
Length of post (words)
140
155
+11
______________________________________
True collaborative learning?
IV. Collaborative Learning
Through Substantive Interaction
• Close, but not there yet
• Not sufficient evidence we have true
“negotiation of meanings” (Wenger)
• Or “true interdependence” (Salomon)
• Next Step:
– Analyze dialog by use of the theory of
“language games”
Language Game Theory
}}}}
Closes language game opened by
Language Game Theory
• A language game must have, as a minimum, the
following elements:
– Initiation (open a new game)
– Expectation (offers that new understanding may emerge if
response is provided)
• Clarify a misconception, resolve a conflict
• Might result in initiation of a subgame (requesting more information,
clarifying an assumption, expanding the game beyond the initiation
concept)
– Closure
• All expectations are met, conflicts resolved
Assumption and Hypothesis
Assumption:
The number of completed Language Games
developed within a dialog in some way (yet to be
determined) will be proportional to the amount of
collaborative learning that takes place.
Hypothesis
The amount of collaborative learning that takes place
will increased by use of the knowledge-building process.
Experimental Procedure and Analysis
• A random number generator was used to generate numbers
that directed which comments would be selected
• 1,350 comments from 1996-2004 were selected for
consideration
• Of these, 689 comments described a situation suitable for
analysis
• Of these 689 comments, 356 (52%) were considered to be
candidates for initiating a language game
• Of the 356 potential games, 242 (68%) were actually created
• Of the 242 games created, 217 (90%) were closed
• Of those comments (689-356=333) for which no game was
created, only 124 (37%) received follow-up comments
Interpretation
Year
% of candidate comments for
which a game was completed
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
17.2
15.7
24.7
38.1
36.5
48.8
35.7
30.1
31.6
Mean = 19%
Mean = 37%
Conclusions
• Online dialog is a powerful option for
promoting reflective thinking and use of
critical thinking skills
• Students will respond if we tell them what we
want them to do
• Developing online learning environments
based on sound pedagogical principles
improves likelihood of success
• Implementation of the knowledge-building
process enhanced student learning
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse
[email protected]