How does educational discourse differ in the on-line environment and the traditional classroom? Kellie Green Aliya Rahman Purdue University Department.

How does educational discourse differ in the on-line environment and the traditional classroom?

Kellie Green

Aliya Rahman

Purdue University

Department of Chemistry

Project Description• Students at the University of

Colorado, Denver took a general chemistry course with a distance-learning format

• All office hours were held once or twice per week in on-line in a chat-room

• Students discussed questions with the facilitator and each other and worked on solving practice problems

Research Question

What are the characteristics of facilitator-student and student-student interactions in the chat-room?– Who is initiating the discourse?– Are the students assisting each

other?– What types of statements and

comments are posed by the facilitator and students?

Advantages of a Chat-Room Environment

• Variable physical environment• Flexibility for scheduling meeting times• Permanent written record of classroom

events

Williams, J. (1999) The Chat Room an Integral Part of the Virtual Classroom in Distance Learning Program Design for Adult Learners. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 439 252)

Chat-room Communication Problems

Williams, J. (1999) The Chat Room an Integral Part of the Virtual Classroom in Distance Learning Program Design for Adult Learners. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 439 252)

• Communication can be hindered– By poor typing skills– Computer hardware and software problem– Lack of motivation of students to participate

Data

• The data are transcripts from the office-hours.

• The transcripts are line by line typed entries made by the participants.

• There are 37 transcripts

Example of Transcript Female facilitator > I'm going to give you three reactions....

(Gives the three reactions)

Female facilitator > What is the enthalpy of the reaction C(s) + H2O (g) ---> CO (g) + H_2 (g)?

Female facilitator > go ahead and consult with each other if you want to discuss how to do this.

<Bob> The third equation is the target equation?

<Joe> OK Bob, first I took half of the enthalpy ofthe reaction with H2

Data AnalysisPart 1: Thread Maps• Line by line coding of the transcripts

– Each line is coded as a response or question• Statements are either in response to a question or

general statements that are not tied to a question• Questions seek an answer and are identified by

question marks or by reading the statement• Events are statements and questions

– The line is also labeled with a participant number to identify the participant

Thread Maps

• Statements and questions are plotted in Microsoft Excel to obtain a sequential plot of events

• Arrows are used to connect the events that are related to each other

• Each group of related events which are connected by unbroken arrows is called a thread

Analysis of Thread Maps

• Each thread is counted and determined to be either initiated by the facilitator or the student

• The total number of questions is counted and the percent student and facilitator determined for each transcript

• The total number of events is also counted and the percent student and facilitator determined for each transcript

Thread Map10/12/98 (1-35)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Events/Time

Par

tici

pan

ts

1= FF, 3= MS, 4= MS, 5= FS, 7= FS, 10= FS, 11=FS, 12= FS = question, = statement

Thread Map10/12/98 (1-35)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Events/Time

Par

tici

pan

ts

1= FF, 3= MS, 4= MS, 5= FS, 7= FS, 10= FS, 11=FS, 12= FS = question, = statement

Part 1Results

• Student participation makes up the largest percentage of events with approximately 65%

• Approximately 75% of threads are initiated by the facilitator.

• The students are proposing questions, but not more often than the facilitator. Approximately 20% of the total questions are proposed by the students.

Results/Problem Solving SessionsFF=Female Facilitator, MF=Male Facilitator, S=Student

Transcript Participant Events Questions

(Subset of Events)

Threads

1 FF 43/116=37% 30/41=73% 26/38=68%

S 73/116=63% 11/41=27% 12/38=32%

2 MF 26/83=31% 24/30=80% 19/26=73%

S 57/83=69% 6/30=20% 7/26=27%

3 FF 21/52=40% 10/13=77% 17/20=85%

S 31/52=60% 3/13=23% 3/20=15%

Data Analysis

Part 2: Code Analysis (NVivo)• Codes were created to analyze the type of

questions and types of responses • The basic labels included

– Gender labeling– Task

• Socializing• Administrative-having to do with classroom

management or computer/software issues• Problem Solving

Code Analysis

• Looking for …– patterns in the codes used– trends in the conversations– “style” characteristics

Results

• Shorthand notation<Joe> where you could eliminate all FC's by double

bonding an oxygen<Joe> to the central atom. I did. Was that right?<female facilitator> That's right. Because that is the only

way to get an octet on the oxygen. <female facilitator>The way you did it was correct. Double

bond on the oxygen.<Joe> OK. I'm just a little confused when things contradict

a little.<Angel> What do you mean by FC?(Conversation continues briefly)<female facilitator> FC means formal charge.

Results

• Spelling was secondary to conveying the intended message– <Lacy> I'm reqwrintg now,,,,,,– <Lacy> WAIT, could you tell me if you are

pklanning to

Results

• Participants used the environment in an informal manner– Students made jokes (“ICE, ICE, baby”)– Sessions not initiated by the facilitator would

sometimes open with general conversations

Conclusion

• Student interaction may be different in a face-to-face environment

• The facilitator is important to the flow of conversation– Probing by the facilitator focuses the students on the

purpose of discussion– Facilitator responses helped to clear

misunderstanding

• Contemplation about how to verbalize questions and statements, led students to become more aware of their misunderstandings

Pilot Study for Comparison to Face-to-Face

Phase I Recitation Observation

• How is problem solving initiated?

• Who helps the students to solve problems?

• Is the discourse similar to the chat-room?

Phase II

Focus Groups• Are students comfortable

initiating questions?• Do the students feel that

the facilitator is the best person to ask questions?

Acknowledgements

• Dr. Gabriela Weaver and the Weaver Research Group

• Dr. Donna L Enersen and EDCI 616 Research class