Transcript Understanding the Impact of Computer

Critically Reflective
Teacher Dialogue In
Asynchronous ComputerMediated Communication
Mark Hawkes, Ph.D.
Dakota State University
International Conference on Advanced
Learning Technologies, August 2001
Computer-Mediated
Communications
The use of computers and computer networks
as communication tools by people who are
collaborating with each other to achieve a
shared goal, which do not require the
physical presence or co-location of
participants, and which can provide a forum
for continuous communication free of time
constraints. (Kaye, 1991, p. 5)
Synchronous Communication
 Takes place in real time, just as if two
people were talking on the telephone
 Examples: group decision support systems,
virtual hallways, network video
conferencing, Internet relay chat, and
MUDs (Multiple User Dimensions)
Asynchronous Communications
 These communications are sent to an
intended receiver but are not delivered
until the receiver physically accesses
them.
 Examples: Internet, e-mail, newsgroups,
listservs, electronic bulletin boards
Characteristics of Asynchronous
Communications
 Interactivity
 Time Independence
 Place Independence
 Multi-participant Capacity
 Communication Storage and Retrievability
 Text Orientation
Study Purpose
Explore teachers’ use of
asynchronous computermediated communications and,
in particular, if and how CMC
encourages them to reflect more
on their practice as teachers.
Key Questions
1. How do reflective processes in face-to-face
dialogue differ from reflection that takes
place in dialogue through computermediated systems?
2. What features of the network collaboration
do participants indicate hinder or facilitate
reflective dialogue?
Characteristics of Study Participants
Electronic PBL Districtwide Statewide
N
%
N
%
N
%
Number of Teachers 28
100
975
100
116,574 100
Gender
Female
25
89
845 87
87,664 75
Male
3
11
130
13
28,910 25
Teaching Tenure
18

15

14 
Average School Size 623 
657

424 
Teacher Ethnicity
Asian
0
0
10
1
816
1
Black
0
0
7
1
13,172 11
Hispanic
0
0
10
1
3,613
3
White
28
100
948 97
96,649 85
District Characteristics
 27 Schools
– 4 Junior High Schools
– 23 Elementary Schools
 15,765
Students (K-8)
 Ethnicity:
– Asian: 11 %
– Black: 5 %
– Hispanic: 5%
– White: 78 %
Technology Characteristics
Each of the 1,051 classrooms is connected to the
district network
 64 kilobyte line connectivity
 One networked computer for every 12 students
 Of computers available for student use,
approximately 38 percent are laptops and 62
percent are desktops
 District annual technology budget: $4.75 million per
year

Project Goals
 Developing integrated and authentic learning
units that focus on “real-life” problem solving
 Increasing skills and usage of value-added
technology toolsthose that strengthen
engaged teaching and learning
 Developing and sharing strategies for using
networks to improve teaching and learning
Project Goals (cont.)
 Creating “communities of practice” (students,
teachers, and experts in the field) that will use
network technologies as a means of sharing
information, questions, and ideas and in
constructing knowledge
 Equipping students with the skills they need to
be productive members of the workforce.
Data Sources
 Electronic communications archives
 Teacher team meetings
 Teacher Interviews
 Classroom artifacts
– Teacher curriculum plans
– Student products
– Assessment tools
Methods
 Discourse analysis
 Server log file analysis
 Inferential statistical analysis
 Qualitative thematic analysis
 Survey
Face-to-face and CMC dialogue
content comparison
Number Utterances Chunks/
Words Per
of Words /Messages Messages Chunk/Post
FTF
19,000
846
222
86
CMC 19,303
179
179
108
Categories of Teacher Messages
Social Exchanges
Logistics
Technology Use
General PBL Dev elopment
PBL Technology Integration
Rev iew Curriculum Implementation Ev ents
Student Assessment
Classroom Roles
*
*
Compare/Contrast
Resource Sharing
Motiv ation/Encouragement
Face-to-Face
CMC
*
*
*
General
0
5
10
15
20
Percent (%)
* indicates significance at the .05 level on Z-tests for percentages.
25
30
Chi-square values on discourse interaction
variables
Involvement Strategies
“Wh” clauses
Indefinite pronouns
Amplifiers
Conversational Cooperation
Sequential Accountability
CMC (n) FTF (n) 12
220
435
220
25
15
326
474
288
95
43
22.99
2.404
10.348
10.007
3.009
P
.001
.065
.001
.002
.064
Comparison of communication
mediums on levels of reflectiveness
N Mean SD
t Sig.
222 2.34 .962 4.14 .001
Face-toFace
Discourse
Computer- 179
Mediated
Discourse
2.73 1.049
Percentage of Rater Observations at Each Reflective Level
50
Percent (%)
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
Ref lectiv e Lev el
Face-to-Face
CMC
6
7
core
Technology Comfortability and Reflection
4.0
Correlation
Observed 3.5
Teacher
Reflection
Score
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Self-Report Technology Comfortability Score
4.0
Mean Reflective Scores Over Time
Mean Reflective Rating
3.5
3
3.289 
2.751

2.5

2
2.152
2.183


2.243

2.529
1.5
1
0.5
0
Beginning
Middle
Time of Observ ation
Face-to-f ace CMC
End
Influences on Critical Reflection
 Discourse Moderator
 OnLine Rules of Etiquette
 Conversational Floor
 Discourse Focus
 Asynchronous Dialogue
 Text Orientation
 Time
Message Postings By Time of Day
Number of Messages
20
15
10
5
0
5
6
7
8 9 10 11 12
am
Week Day
1
2
Weekend
3
4
5 6
pm
7
8
9 10 11
Ref lectiv e Messages
Self-Efficacy and Reflection Correlation
4.0
3.8
Self
Report
Efficacy
Scores
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
Self Report Reflection Scores
3.6
3.8
4.0
Self-Efficacy and Observed Reflection Correlation
4.0
3.8
Self
Report
Efficacy
Scores
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Observed Reflective Scores
4.0
4.5
Computer-Mediated
Communication
Facilitates teacher reflection
Satisfies knowledge-based
professional development needs
promotes teacher collaboration
Suggestions for Implementing
CMC Professional Development
 Moderator with limited facilitation role.
– Assists participants in gaining access to
conversational floor
– Ensures technical topics do not dominate
discourse
– Helps maintain discourse focus
– Synthesizes contributions and points out how
reflective ideas were processes and how individual
messages contributed to the reflective discourse
Suggestions (cont.)
 Discourse Focus
– Immediately applicable to the classroom
– For K-6 teachers: age-level focus
– For 7-12 teachers: content area focus
– Anchored in pedagogy, not technology
Suggestions (cont.)
 Participant Composition
• Narrow participation--Homogeneous grouping
– Convergent tasking activities--curriculum
development, study group, study task force
• Broad participation--Heterogeneous grouping
– Divergent tasking activities--brain storming,
anecdotal/experience sharing . . .
Suggestions (cont.)
 Access at home
• Better/faster access at home
• More time at home
• Teachers do a good deal of their professional
work at home
Suggestions (cont.)
 Teacher Skills Training
• Screen for presence of appropriate
prerequisite skills
• Provide training concurrent with reasonable
technology access
• Provide technical assistance away from the
discourse forum either through e-mail or as a
separate conference thread
• Provide pointers to helpful online documents
(FAQs)
Research Needs
 A study of threads of discourse rather than
chucks/single messages, including the
sustainability of reflection, the diversity of
contributions, and the utility of CMC
participation in improving teacher practice
 The effects of conversational pace,
purpose, and range of participants on
reflection
 Task/role analysis