JAM 2015 Session Shouting through their fingertips

© 2015 Jenzabar, Inc.

Presented by Dr. Susan J. WegmannBaptist College of FloridaMay 29, 2015, 8:30-9:30www.slideshare.com/swegmann

Shouting Through their Fingertips: One Model to Evaluate Online Learner Engagement

Jenzabar’s Annual MeetingMay 27 - 30, 2015

Gaylord Opryland Resort & Convention CenterNashville, TN


Agenda

Seven Principles for Good Practice – Chickering and Gamson Online Discourse Optimal online interaction – Connected Stance SCOPe framework SCOPe in action Potential ways to increase Connected Stance

• Structure in place• 3R pattern

Future research


1. Encourage contact between students and faculty2. Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students3. Encourage active learning4. Give prompt feedback5. Emphasize time on task6. Communicate high expectations7. Respect diverse talents and ways of learning

Chickering & Gamson (1987)

7 Principles of Good Practice


The power of online discourse

Online Discourse


Community of Inquiry – CoI (Dewey, others, then Lipman, then below from Garrison, Anderson, Archer, 2000)


The degree to which participants I computer-mediated communities feel affectively connected to each other.(Short, Williams, Christie, 1976; Moore and Gunawardena and others)

Ability of participant to:1.Identify with community2.Communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and 3.Develop inter-personal relationships by way of projecting their

individual personalities

Moore – added the idea of transactional distance between people in online classes

Social Presence


If discourse is so important. . .

Optimal Online Discourse


Connected

Stance Engagement and Participation

© 2015 Jenzabar, Inc.9

A Connected Stance

High Engagement (richness of contribution

s)

High Participation (amount contribute

d)


Like an iceberg. . .

Picciano (2009) suggested that a well-organized discussion board activity generally seeks to present a topic or issue and have students respond to questions, provide their own perspectives while also evaluating and responding to the opinions of others. The simple, direct visual of the “thread” also allows students to see how the entire discussion or lesson has evolved. (p. 15).

Analyzing Online Discourse


Connected Stance Moves

• Standard themes for coding• Purpose(s) of student contributions• The ways students use language:

o Simplistic or more complexo Self-referencing or dialogicalo From functional to sophisticatedo Currently 24 moves identified

11


Introducing a new topic Sharing opinionSharing beliefs Connecting to other readings Connecting to own experiences Connecting to their own classrooms Connecting to their own thinking Building rapport Suggesting organizational theme Revealing their own strugglesResponding to a peer’s question Giving information

Giving advice Connecting to a previous thought Questioning (or wondering)Giving an exampleSharing “Grand idea” Challenging a peer Connecting to course contentUsing humor Couches reply to inform audienceLeading up to a conclusionDrawing a conclusionChallenging course content

12

Moves identified


Moves Example Statements

1. Introducing a new topic I know that we are talking about reading in science, but I find myself trying to motivate my students to read in order to be successful in math.

2. Sharing opinion/ 3. Sharing beliefs The teacher must be able to relate to the students and to know what their background is.

4. Connecting to other readings

I have read much in another class on how SAT or FCAT is biased toward a white American perspective.

5. Connecting to their own experiences I can vividly remember lacking this kind of direction in the majority of my own middle and high school classes.

6. Connecting to their own classrooms For example, I have a seventh grade Language Arts class with two students reading at level four, ten at level three, four at level two, and five at level. Although it takes extra planning and time, I have to find activities that will both challenge my level threes and fours while at the same time reach my level ones and twos.

7. Connecting to their own thinking (reflecting)

I am looking forward to creating more of a participant atmosphere where literacy is concerned and not only guiding the students toward information and higher-thinking, but also having them guide each other.

8. Building rapport Wow! Thanks for being first and for such a great response! 9. Suggesting a new organizational theme

One teacher even does a mathematics journal so that students can write out the processes that they use to solve problems in words. This way, the requirements of the state are met and she doesn't have to do any "mushy" (her words) writing!

10. Revealing their own struggles

I don't know if I'm really doing these children any good by requiring this assignment.


11. Responding to another peer’s question

I think both stances have a place in the classroom, but the key is to know when one is more appropriate to use.

12. Giving information Getting students actively involved in discussion helps them to better understand and retain the material. This method allows the student to use and expand their LERs.

13. Giving advice Once you start teaching, the material will become second nature to you and you will be fine.

14. Connecting to a previous thought

I can definitely see what you're talking about. If a teacher can create a true aesthetic stance for students toward academia, that is a true accomplishment.

15. Questioning (or wondering)

If a student cannot find something about which to say, "I've always wondered about that!" or "So that's what that is!" or "I'm not so sure that is true," then has the teacher really taught that student the deepest meaning of science?


16. Giving an example Simply having students passively read and regurgitate answers does not enrich the learning experience. Hands-on experiments, communication with peers through class discussion, field trips, and other real-life experiences build upon students' already existing LERs.

17. Sharing “Grand idea” (sweeping generalization)

It's important that all teachers create a risk free environment.

18. Challenging a peer While I like your idea of a common ground, I'm not quite sure if that is always attainable. Students come from so many different backgrounds and different understandings of topics that finding a common ground might be difficult.

19. Connecting to course content

It is the two-and-fro interplay of the literacy definition I find most valuable.

20. Using humor I say to myself, "I know these ideas are how things should be." But I find myself saying, "*sigh... This is harder than I thought it would be!" I am having a hard time separating my feelings for certain of my "knucklehead" students.


Last four moves:

Couches reply to inform audienceLeading up to a conclusionDrawing a conclusionChallenging course content


Characteristics of Students

Higher performing students tended to engage in higher-levels of thinking.

Lower performing students tended to engage in lower-levels of thinking.



Connected Stance Findings

1. Connected Stance associated with higher student grades

2. Higher performing students: •More words•More ways of using language

3. Instructor intervention Connected Stance

19


o Qualitative data is time consuming to collect/analyze

o Possible inter-rater reliability issues

Existing Approach to Analyzing Discourse

If we agree that a Connected Stance is Optimal. . .


Connected Stance Status

o Level 2: Existing Robust Methodso Level 1: New Process (SCOPe)

If we agree that a Connected Stance is Optimal. . .

Revised Approach


SCOPe Analysis

Analyzing Online Interactions


SCOPe of Interactions• 24 “moves” reduced to 4 “meta-moves”• Language usage in interactions are:• Self-referencing • Content-referencing• Other- referencing• Platform-referencing

• Worksheet tallies rather than robust analysis

SCOPe Evaluation


Example of Coding



1. Rank by cumulative grade; identify high, middle, lower performers.

2. Analyze & tally meta-moves by H, M, L students and construct quadrant graph from worksheet.

3. Plot H, M, L students on graph

The process. . .


Phase I: Checklist of Optimal Online Interaction on Asynchronous Discussion Board Directions: 1. Review one online asynchronous discussion board for the following best practices. Mark as: (+) present(#) present but weak(-) not present2. Write out two or three statements for each meta-move, summarizing the interactions within each. Note strengths and weaknesses within each category.Meta-moves Indicators +

#-

Content Understanding (comprehension of the content under discussion)

1. All components of the discussion prompt or question was addressed in students’ initial postings.

2. At least 75% of students responded to the sample post.

3. In general, students’ responses were insightful and characterized by critical thinking.

4. Students understand significant ideas relevant to the issues under discussion. (i.e. 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.)

5. Information in students’ posts and knowledge are accurate.

6. Students elaborate statements with accurate explanations, reasons, or evidence



Which type of interactions occurred most often? Least often?

Were these interactions meaningful? Did the interactions and word count

identify students as engaging in Connected Stance?

“Occurrences of Interactions”


Structure of the course 3R pattern – Respond, React,

Reply Discussion Leaders Discussion “prizes” Faculty highlight great interaction

sequences

Potential ways to increase Connected Stance


To establish and sustain a Community of Inquiry, educators must be knowledgeable, flexible but focused, and comfortable with uncertainty.

(Dewey, 1933, p. 22)


Analyze Blended Learning Environments – using SCOPe framework

Identify other structural patterns of engagement that would facilitate discussion board participation

Future Research


Interaction Resources “Blended Interactions” in BlendKit Reader http://bit.ly/blendkitreader_ch02 “Creating Protocols” in Course Doc Drafts http://bit.ly/blended_docs Also see Blended Course Interaction Strategies seminar handout

Interaction Evaluation Resources “Discussion Rubrics” in Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository http://bit.ly/discussion_rubrics Sample Weekly Feedback Form Example http://bit.ly/sample_feedback Sample Interaction-Related Course Evaluation Items http://bit.ly/blog_eval

SCOPe Resources Examples of Interactions Classified by SCOPe http://bit.ly/SCOPe_ex Instructions for Plotting Online Interactions on SCOPe Graph http://bit.ly/plot_ex Instructions for Tallying F2F Interactions Using SCOPe http://bit.ly/SCOPe_f2f

Resources

http://bit.ly/blendkitreader_ch02

http://bit.ly/blendkitreader_ch02

http://bit.ly/blended_docs

http://bit.ly/blended_docs

http://bit.ly/discussion_rubrics

http://bit.ly/discussion_rubrics

http://bit.ly/sample_feedback

http://bit.ly/sample_feedback

http://bit.ly/blog_eval

http://bit.ly/blog_eval

http://bit.ly/SCOPe_ex

http://bit.ly/SCOPe_ex

http://bit.ly/plot_ex

http://bit.ly/plot_ex

http://bit.ly/SCOPe_f2f

http://bit.ly/SCOPe_f2f


Wegmann, S., & Thompson, K. (2013). SCOPe-ing out Interactions in Blended Learning Environments. In A. Picciano, C. Dzuiban, & C. R. Graham (Eds). Blended Learning Research Perspectives, Vol. 2. NY: Taylor & Francis. Wegmann, S. (2009) Interactions Online. In Rogers, P., Berg, G., Boettcher, J., Howard, C., Justice, L., and Schenk, K. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Distance and Online Learning. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Retrieved March 2, 2009: http://www.igi-global.com/downloads/pdf/Rogers1259.pdf. Wegmann, S. (2009). “Cross Talk” Online: A Case Study of One Successful Student’s Online Interactions. In B. Olaniran (Ed.) Cases on Successful E-Learning Practices in the Developed and Developing World: Methods for the Global Information Economy. Hershey, PA: IGI .Wegmann, S., & McCauley, J. (2007) Can you hear us now? Stances toward interaction and rapport. In Y. Inoue (Ed.), Online Education for Lifelong Learning. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Wegmann, S. (2007). Engaging the Mind through the Fingers: An Analysis of Online Interaction and Stance, In Falk-Ross, S., Foote, R., Linder, P., Sampson, C., and Szabo, S. 2006 CRA Yearbook Volume 28. Wegmann, S., & McCauley, J. (2014). Interaction and stances of students and teachers in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18. 97-114.McCauley, J., & Wegmann, S. (in press). Designing thoughtful online discussions: Why Some Students Are Still Left Behind. Journal of Interactive Online Learning.

Connected Stance articles/chapters

http://enews.igi-global.com/m/f6bGdtEPOq6klbOVx2jVjX9uosgn421m9R-jmNDuS79AAs4j5g


#125