Get documents about "Engagement and participatory democracy in online communities of
Shared by: jennyyingdi
-
Stats
- views:
- 0
- posted:
- 7/29/2012
- language:
- pages:
- 62
Document Sample
Engagement and participatory
democracy in online
communities of inquiry
Jim Waters
The iSchool at Drexel
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~jw65/
What is the BIG problem ?
How do we get students to engage in a
committed collaborative knowledge
building enterprise in an online learning
setting ?
Engaging students is hard enough when you can
see them in front of you …
… When they are remote, it is even harder.
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
What do we know about online learning ?
Rapid growth in online education (Allen and Seaman 2007;
Griffiths and Gatien 1999)
Efficiency gains, flexibility for consumers and the potential
for more effective learning (Benbunan-Fich and Hiltz 1999;
Benbunan-Fich, Hiltz and Turoff 2001; Hiltz and Wellman
1997)
Longer preparation times (Burgess and Strong 2003),
Anecdotal nature of many positive results (McNaught,
Kenny, Kennedy and Lord 1999)
Lack of satisfaction with the process experienced by many
learners (Ocker and Yaverbaum 1999).
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Dissatisfaction may be related to our
traditional model of teaching and learning
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
So what else do we know ?
Collaborative activity important in constructing knowledge
(Stahl 2006; Lave and Wenger 1991; Jonassen, Mayes and
McAleese 1993)
Online students exhibit the behaviors found in a Social
Network (Garton, Haythornthwaite and Wellman 1997;
McDonald, Noakes, Stuckey and Nyrop 2005)
Weak Ties (Granovetter, 1973)
Even without formal roles being assigned , leadership
behaviors emerge in online settings (Heckman and Misiolek
2005; Carte, Chidambaram, and Becker 2006)
Students display different levels of engagement, depending
on psychological involvement (Kappelman & McLean 1992)
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Alternative models emphasize the social
construction of knowledge
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Newer models view learning as taking
place within a community of inquiry
Garrison et al 2001
Stahl 2006
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
The community of inquiry concept is
not new …
There is a community engaged in
inquiry. Inquiry is an open-ended
process with positive feedback.
Dewey (1916)
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
But engagement with social construction
in learning adds new dimensions
A Community of Inquiry (Garrison et al 2001)
Cognitive Artifacts
Learning
Consensus
Product
Material Knowledge
Iteration
Collaboration
Internalization
Externalization
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Research Question
How may we encourage deep,
constructivist learning within an
online community of inquiry?
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Research Context
Analyzed online interactions in graduate classes in
information systems and information science
Graduate students are mostly experienced professionals,
who are motivated to engage with education
Findings can inform how we implement “best practice”
for such students
Course interactions via discussion board on
Blackboard learning system
Most common channel of communication for online
courses
Discussion boards used as substitute for in-class debate
Issue is how to ensure greatest engagement with
learning via this channel of communication.
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Research Method
Initial study: 2 ten-week graduate courses
Collected and analyzed student messages posted
to discussion board
Analyzed on a per-message level, to understand online
interaction behaviors
Content analysis also performed, to understand degree
of engagement
Analyzed
Type of message,
Patterns of message sequences
Threads and sub-thread interactions
Social interactions
Student behaviors related to learning outcomes
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Posted message From To Behavior
The value chain model doesn't fit today's business model… The correct sequence S4 All Contributor
should put marketing and sales in the first place. Manufacturing, storage, distribution
should rely on customer orders. …
The value chain bugged me, too, when I first read it. On reading it again the light S11 S4 Complicator
dawned. The text is only showing one version of the value chain, when in fact there
are several. Which one is applicable to a business depends on their business model.
… <elaborates>
I think it is also difficult to understand the value chain because we are reading it from S12 S11 Complicator
a static standpoint. Depending on what phase the product is in, i.e. is it new and the
first batch is being processed, has it been around for a while. I would certainly like to
see #4, Marketing & Sales to be first or second. … <suggests alternatives>
I agree with S12. Product maturity is not so relevant in an ETO world because most S11 S12 Vicarious
end items are built only for one sale. But in a typical retail world I can see how there Acknow-
would be differences based on product maturity.; The text's value chain almost looks ledger
like it is for a brand new product.
I have to go the other way. To me, the text's value chain seems best suited for an S13 S11 Facilitator
established product. As others have observed, there is no initial step where the need
for the product is determined. That seems to imply a known demand that is being
met. … S11 made some great points about different delivery processes. I think this
model could be used for all of those.
I've been doing some thinking in this area. Education is different in many respects S9 All Closer
from manufacturing. … I got the sense that there is a kind of chicken/egg thing going
on with the value-chain model. Without sales there is no need for inputs, but
without manufacturing, etc. there is nothing to sell. Unless products are marketed,
there is no sales. So it’s circular.
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Learning Interaction Behaviors
Analysis revealed 8 types of interaction behaviors
Silence (Vicarious learner)
Contractual Obligation (Contributor)
Social connector (Initiator)
I agree with Fred (Vicarious Acknowledger)
How do I ? (Knowledge elicitor)
Active Facilitation (facilitator)
Reframing (complicator)
Synthesis (closer)
Behaviors are fluid and interact (feedback loop)
Some interactions are more productive than others
It is possible to learn actively though invisibly.
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Initial Research Findings
The most attended to participants posted
more facilitation messages (39% of
messages posted)
The least attended to participants typically
posted far fewer facilitation messages.
(23% of messages posted).
Students quickly identify valuable
contributors
Student-Student interactions become
more frequent over time compared with
Student-Instructor interactions
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Detailed Research Questions
1. Do various patterns of behavior lead
to different levels of student
engagement with learning?
2. Do various types of student
interaction lead to different levels of
student engagement with learning?
3. How can we encourage patterns of
behavior or types of student
interaction that lead to deeper levels
of student engagement with learning?
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Three Levels of Engagement
Level Form of Activity Predicted Outcomes
Observable behavior
Participation Superficial learning, resulting
that denotes from acquisition of terminology
interaction with course and content or domain
materials through definitions of knowledge
passive activity. (Externalization)
Involvement Behavior that indicates Contextually-situated learning,
psychological state of results from active construction
identification with of knowledge within learning
course objects. community. (Internalization)
Social Behavior indicating Deep learning, that results from
Engagement commitment to the the active co-construction of
facilitation and knowledge with peer learners.
direction of sustained (Objectivation through cycles of
learning. internalization & externalization.)
Waters & Gasson (2006)
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Earlier research 2004 - 2007
Social network behaviors (Haythornthwaite 1999)
In-degree and out-degree (centrality)
Centrality correlates with status (a bit)
Interaction behavior correlates strongly with
centrality
Cliquing over time
In-degree and out-degree decline universally
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Earlier research 2004 - 2007
Social engagement
Levels of engagement
Deep Iterative, collaborative knowledge building
Identification with community and commitment
to group learning
Problem framing important to engagement
Strong Core individuals (Thought-leaders)
relate a community understanding to professional
expertise or domain-knowledge
deeper levels of course engagement than other students
Drive engagement process for peers
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Thought-Leaders in Online Debate
Provide impetus to discussion
Quality not volume
Facilitate and complicate
Responders and Inspirers
(Inspirational responders)
Critique, refine, reframe
Encourage, moderate, enthuse
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Thought-leaders encouraging discussion
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Thought-leaders as exclusionary ?
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Weaving threads into a Cloth
To what extent do interaction behaviors affect quality of
online engagement, learning outcomes and learning
satisfaction ?
How do we recognize and encourage engagement ?
How do we recognize a breakdown in engagement ?
To what extent do interaction behaviors concord with
perceptions of students as thought-leaders ?
Does the presence of thought-leaders affect quality of
online discussion ?
Are there any common factors that identify thought-leaders
?
Are thought leaders a good idea ?
Participatory democracy (Dewey, 1916) vs. benevolent
oligarchy
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Participatory democracy vs. benevolent oligarchy
Will an active core of students bring in
peripheral participants or exclude them ?
How do we get peripheral participants to
join the circle ?
Does it matter if some do not actively
participate ?
I meant to ask that but……
Vicarious learners or lurkers ?
Should we moderate core participants
dominating the discussion or encourage
them ?
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Data
11 Drexel Online Graduate Courses
Mix of IS and Library Science
240 Students
Open-ended and Procedural material
Blackboard™
Weekly Online Discussion Board
Faculty committed to collaborative
learning approach
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
The discussion board as a tool for engagement
Asynchronous discussion boards
Guided collaborative debate
Allow participants time to read prior posts
and reflect on them before making their
own contributions (English and Yazadani
1999; Lipponen 2001)
Problem-based approach
How do students feel about this ?
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
The Glass is Half-Full?
Absolutely! This is the core of online learning
I enjoy the blackboard discussions because it gives a sense of
community to an online course.
I do enjoy online collaboration and feel that this is a wonderful opportunity to
learn from professionals with varied experiences and backgrounds
The exchange of ideas and the associated discussion is at the heart of
the academic experience
Yes, I like collaborating in online discussions. Different perspectives add
value to the discussion
I find that the discussions are more productive and that people make
more substantial and better considered contributions when writing
to the discussion boards. In addition, it is easier for me because I have
time to read, think, and digest the material before crafting a response
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Or is it half empty ?
I do not enjoy discussion boards at all. I would much prefer figuring out the
content of the course by myself and emailing the professor for
assistance when need be, or posting my question on the discussion board.
I would rather not have to endure discussion board participation.
About seventy percent of the time I think that it’s an annoyance. …
Of all the aspects of the online experience, the discussion board is my
least favorite. So far I haven’t felt much like I’ve made any personal
connections with my fellow students.
With the discussion boards, you have to make an effort to read the
other students’ posts and sometimes it’s tempting not to.
Generally, no. From what I have seen so far here at Drexel, the discussions
tend to get a bit grandstanding-ish and there’s always the one student
who has to answer everyone and be first to get to everything and has
cutsie messages for the teacher… same as in an onsite classroom,
but more annoying online because you have to read everything to
be sure you’re not missing anything important.
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Who are thought-Leaders?
Case Study I
Lib Science course, 25 students
Surveyed students opinions
Strong agreement on leaders (2)
S6 (85%)
S13 (85%)
How are they different, if at all
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Post Count
Student Posts Student-student Student-Inst
S13 19 12 7
S6 30 21 9
Average 13.24 9.72 3.52
S10 35 26 9
S24 21 18 3
S11 17 14 3
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
So what is different about them ?
S6
Technical writer
Teaching experience
Limited Domain Knowledge
Limited online learning experience
Extensive work experience
Discussion board skeptic
Generally, no. From what I have seen so far here at Drexel, the discussions
tend to get a bit grandstanding-ish and there’s always the one student
who has to answer everyone and be first to get to everything and has
cutsie messages for the teacher… same as in an onsite classroom,
but more annoying online because you have to read everything to
be sure you’re not missing anything important
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
So what is different about them ?
S13
New graduate (Arts)
Limited Domain Knowledge
No online learning experience
No teaching experience
No opinion on discussion boards
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
How do they behave ?
Not particularly social
Neither attempts to build a social network
Both task oriented
Both top inspirers (posts elicit responses)
Average responders
More frequently read – NO
Did they talk to each other – not really
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
The Thought-leaders’ posts
Facilitate
S23, your question stirred up my thoughts on librarianship.
Have any of you had any practical experiences here? Any ideas
on how to handle this? Interesting!
Encourage
It's interesting that you said "reference hat" because it
reminded me of something…
Reframe
the problem of inadequate users is completely different from
solving the problem of hostile users because the former has
problems of illiteracy and inability to use services, while the
latter are well-educated but underestimate the usefulness of
libraries. Using the same techniques for each of these non-
users would be very ineffective
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Who are thought-Leaders?
Case Study II
IS course
25 students
Surveyed student opinion
Two strong thought-leaders
S15 & S18
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
S15 & S18
Similarbackgrounds
Strongest domain knowledge
Strongest practical experience
Not great inspirers
Average responders
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
S18
Authoritative Posts
Opinion supported by external sources
Real world examples (own and 3rd party)
Synthesizes arguments
Reframes debate, challenges question
Some positive feedback
Long detailed posts, but few posts
Limited involvement in deep threads
A Closer – attempts definitive answer
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
S15
Collaborative (collegial) tone
Opinion supported by external sources,
though not as much as S18
Hypothetical examples “suppose they…”
Strong positive feedback for peers
Short posts
Frequent posts
Strong involvement in deep threads
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
How does this help ?
Context is crucial
No approach has universal utility
Domain differences ?
Experience not always crucial !
Collaborative spirit vs. Authority
It depends
So, if peer behavior is important to
engagement, to what extent can faculty
intervention encourage engagement ?
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Moderated vs. Laissez-faire
Case Study III
Two sections of an IS course delivered at the
same time – same basic syllabus
Same number of students (25)
Selected six “identical” questions on each
section
Different Instructor approach
Heavy moderation vs. lightweight moderation
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Questions and Approach (messages)
Question Heavy Moderation Low Moderation
Systems Analyst as problem 69 74
solver
Agile methods 96 97
Project design 150 97
Requirements Analysis 96 83
Fact Finding 85 90
Data Modeling Practice 182 180
112 103
Average
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Systems Analyst as Problem Heavy Moderation Low Moderation
solver
Total Messages 69 74
Instructor – student 17(24%) 0
messages
Deep sub-threads ( 4 4 6
levels or greater)
Student messages 52 74
Student-instructor 25 25
messages
Student-student 27 52
messages
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Agile methods Heavy Moderation Low Moderation
Total Messages 96 97
Instructor – student 16(17%) 0
messages
Deep sub-threads ( 4 10 8
levels or greater)
Student messages 80 97
Student-instructor 52 24
messages
Student-student 28 73
messages
Deep thread messages 65 44
(students)
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Deep threads without instructor intervention
Agile methods Heavy Moderation Low Moderation
Total Messages 95 97
Deep sub-threads ( 4 2 8
levels or greater)
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Project design Heavy Moderation Low Moderation
Total Messages 150 97
Instructor – student 44(30%) 0
messages
Deep Threads 18 9
Student messages 106 97
Student-instructor 53 23
messages
Student-student 53 74
messages
Deep thread messages 78 46
(students)
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Deep threads without instructor intervention
Goals objectives and scope Heavy Moderation Low Moderation
Total Messages 150 97
Deep sub-threads ( 4 3 9
levels or greater)
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
So does providing feedback help ?
Moderated Un-moderated
Agile methods (Words) 8823 21203
Agile methods (Messages) 80 97
Project design (Words) 12227 20211
Project Design (Messages) 106 97
SA problem solver (Words) 5220 15714
SA problem solver (messages) 52 74
Tot messages 238 268
Tot words 26270 57128
Average words/student
message 110.38 213.16
What about question design ?
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Posing questions - general
Sometimes a committed , motivated and
interested group with decent moderation will be
inert.
Even within the same niche of the same domain
some questions just work better than others
Good question design is not trivial even for
domain experts
Does the question connect to student experience,
real or vicarious
Is the question relevant to the course
Does the question represent a well-structured
single knowledge domain goal
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Good, bad or average?
I would like each of you to initially focus on one fact
finding technique, your contribution should be a critical
(but brief) examination of that technique within the
domain of systems analysis. [fact-finding]
Critically evaluate the author's FAST approach. Is it useful?
Practical? What are some alternatives? Is this a "real"
model that could be used on "real" projects? [Fast or Slow]
I want you to cook up a systems development project (real or
imagined). Describe the goal(s), the objective(s) of the
project and the scope of the work the systems analyst for the
project. Post your goals, objectives and scope by around
Thursday of this week. I'd then like each of you to comment a
bit on each other's work. [cooking up a new project]
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
And the Winner is
I want you to cook up a systems development project (real or
imagined). Describe the goal(s), the objective(s) of the
project and the scope of the work the systems analyst for the
project. Post your goals, objectives and scope by around
Thursday of this week. I'd then like each of you to comment a
bit on each other's work. [cooking up a new project]
I would like each of you to initially focus on one fact
finding technique, your contribution should be a critical
(but brief) examination of that technique within the
domain of systems analysis. [fact-finding]
Critically evaluate the author's FAST approach. Is it useful?
Practical? What are some alternatives? Is this a "real"
model that could be used on "real" projects? [Fast or Slow]
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Good
I want you to cook up a systems development project (real or imagined).
Describe the goal(s), the objective(s) of the project and the scope of the work
the systems analyst for the project. Post your goals, objectives and scope by
around Thursday of this week. I'd then like each of you to comment a bit on
each other's work. [cooking up a new project]
150 posts (2nd best thread)
Several sub-threads extremely deep (7 or 8 levels) Question is level 1
30% of messages were Instructor to Student
29% of messages were student to instructor
Critique, feedback, support and facilitation
Well-placed faculty moderation, nudges rather than cattle prods
Well-bounded but open-ended problem, students define problem
Initial high level of misunderstanding of task (goals vs. objectives)
despite material having been formally covered already
Students negotiated the meaning of the task collaboratively
Deliberate pitching as cooperative
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Average
I would like each of you to initially focus on one fact finding technique, your
contribution should be a critical (but brief) examination of that technique
within the domain of systems analysis. [fact-finding]
85 posts (Mean was 91)
Moderate sub-thread depth (mostly 3 or 4 levels)
31% were messages from Instructor to students
20% were messages from students to instructor
Well-placed faculty moderation, focus on challenging assumptions.
Reasonably open-ended problem
Far less cooperative inter-student activity
Not pitched as a cooperative activity
Students not answering a common question, but question is defined
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Bad
Critically evaluate the author's FAST approach. Is it useful? Practical?
What are some alternatives? Is this a "real" model that could be used
on "real" projects? [Fast or Slow]
46 posts
Limited sub-thread depth - mostly 2 (question then single response)
45% were messages from Instructor to students
37% were messages from students to instructor
18% were student-student messages
Faculty intervention much more critical (didactic)
Five questions in one, one open-ended 4 bounded
Very little cooperative inter-student activity
Not pitched as a cooperative activity
One overarching common question
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Final Words: Value of online discussion
this was so helpful because often I was struggling with the same thing so
I could learn from their errors and gain new information from the answers to
their questions
I was moved to comment on how refreshing the lack of competition in the
Communications for the online classes seemed to me. It was a discussion
and a sharing of experiences
No question that the on line discussion was critical to getting me
through the class. There were mostly questions about how to..
I've never done this before.
I felt lost and inexperienced most of the time. I have no real full time work
experience and I felt I had nothing much to contribute and compared to
the rest of the posts mine would feel really insignificant.
Honestly, in the second half of the course, I have felt like I must be a pariah.
Apart from the professor, I can't get anyone to respond to my posts-
a very lonely feeling. I have posted to the the weekly board with little feedback
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Worrying or not ?
I felt lost and inexperienced most of the time. I have no real full time work
experience and I felt I had nothing much to contribute and compared to
the rest of the posts mine would feel really insignificant.
Stopped posting after week 2
Little opportunity to get drawn in
What do you do if someone will not contribute ?
Honestly, in the second half of the course, I have felt like I must be a pariah.
Apart from the professor, I can't get anyone to respond to my posts-
a very lonely feeling. I have posted to the the weekly board with little feedback
Concerned about how posts interpreted
Most posts were responded to
Most posts positive feedback but no added content
Many posts Social rather than task-oriented
Rarely posted thread starters
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
The problem with traditional teaching
“Mr. Osborne, may I be excused - my brain is full.”
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Solving limitations of the traditional model
Midway through the exam, Allen pulls out a bigger brain
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Conclusions I
Tentative findings
Deep engagement can be encouraged by
thought-leaders
Useful thought-leader behaviors highly
context dependent
Interaction behaviors interact
Faculty feedback improves some forms of
engagement but perhaps at the expense of
student-student interactions ?
Finite tank of engagement ?
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Conclusions II
Question design can be crucial to
engagement
Discussion needs to be framed as
collaborative not competitive
Students recognize core participants,
should we alter our behaviors to fit ?
Committed engagement is possible
So is isolation and inertia !
Sense of community is not automatic
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
What next ?
Much more data crunching
Establish if patterns of behavior are recurrent
Deeper analysis of message content and its
impact on interactions
Digging into thought-leader issues
Frame findings as positive contributions to
course design and management
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
Related References
Waters, J. 'Social Network Behavior, Thought-Leaders and Knowledge Building In
An Online Learning Community', Proceedings of Hawaii Intl. Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS-41), Knowledge Management Track, Jan. 2008.
Gasson, S. and Waters, J. “How (not) to construct ALN course questions that encourage
student participation in peer collaboration and knowledge construction,” 40th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, January 2007.
Waters, J., and Gasson, S. "Social Engagement in an Online Community of Inquiry," 27th
International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Milwaukee WI, 2006.
Waters, J. “Determinants of Engagement in an Online Community of Inquiry,” The 12th
Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning, November 2006,
http://www.sloanconsortium.org/conference/proceedings/2006/ppt/1162852287092.pot
Waters, J., and Gasson, S. "Strategies Employed By Participants In Virtual Learning
Communities," Hawaii Intl. Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-38), Collaboration Systems
and Technology track, IEEE Software Society, Manua, Hawaii, January 2005, 2005, p. 3b.
A full list of publications, with full copies of articles, is available at
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~jw65/publications.htm
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
About Me
I am a Doctoral Candidate at the iSchool at Drexel University, Philadelphia
(USA), graduating Summer 2009.
My principal research interests lie in Online Collaborative Knowledge
Building, Technology-Supported Learning, Student Role-Behavior in Online
Learning Communities and HCI. I am currently employed (2005 - 2008) as
a Research Assistant on an IMLS funded project "Toward a Model
Curriculum for the Management of Digital Information".
I received a BA in Psychology at Warwick University, UK (1979), an MSc in
Occupational Psychology at the University of Hertfordshire, UK (1991) and
a MS in Information Systems at the College of IS&T at Drexel University
(2002). Prior to my advanced academic studies I enjoyed a substantial
career in Systems Design, Management and IS Consultancy.
Email: jw65@drexel.edu
Jim Waters, Drexel University, 2008
