Critically Reflective Teacher Dialogue In

							Critically Reflective
Teacher Dialogue In
Asynchronous Computer-
Mediated 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 computer-
mediated 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 computer-
   mediated 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 Development
               PBL Technology Integration
                                                                                     *
 Review Curriculum Implementation Events
                      Student Assessment
                         Classroom Roles

                           Compare/Contrast                            *
                           Resource Sharing                   *
                  Motivation/Encouragement                *


               Face-to-Face           General
               CMC                               0    5           10       15   20       25   30
                                                                   Percent (%)
* indicates significance at the .05 level on Z-tests for percentages.
Chi-square values on discourse interaction
variables
                             CMC (n) FTF (n) 12    P
Involvement Strategies
   “Wh” clauses                220   326   22.99    .001
   Indefinite pronouns         435   474   2.404    .065
Amplifiers                     220   288   10.348    .001
Conversational Cooperation      25    95   10.007    .002
Sequential Accountability       15    43    3.009    .064
Comparison of communication
mediums on levels of reflectiveness


            N Mean SD     t Sig.
 Face-to-  222 2.34 .962 4.14 .001
 Face
 Discourse
 Computer- 179   2.73 1.049
 Mediated
 Discourse
                   Percentage of Rater Observations at Each Reflective Level

              50


              40
Percent (%)




              30


              20


              10


              0
                      1        2        3          4           5     6         7
                                            Reflective Level
                                       Face-to-Face            CMC
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      4.0

                 Self-Report Technology Comfortability Score
                                        Mean Reflective Scores Over Time
                         3.5
                                                                           3.289
                          3
Mean Reflective Rating




                                2.751
                               
                         2.5                          2.183                     
                                                                          2.529
                                                       
                          2                           2.243
                               2.152
                         1.5

                          1

                         0.5

                          0
                         Beginning                   Middle                   End
                                               Time of Observation
                                              Face-to-face CMC
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

                     20
Number of Messages




                     15



                     10



                     5



                     0
                          5   6   7    8 9 10 11 12 1    2   3   4   5 6   7   8   9 10 11
                                      am                              pm
                                      Week Day     Weekend       Reflective Messages
                        Self-Efficacy and Reflection Correlation
           4.0

           3.8


           3.6
Self
Report     3.4

Efficacy
Scores     3.2

           3.0

           2.8


           2.6

           2.4
                 2.4   2.6    2.8     3.0    3.2     3.4     3.6   3.8   4.0

                             Self Report Reflection Scores
                       Self-Efficacy and Observed Reflection Correlation
           4.0


           3.8



Self       3.6

Report
Efficacy   3.4

Scores
           3.2



           3.0


           2.8
                 1.5       2.0      2.5      3.0      3.5       4.0        4.5

                                   Observed Reflective Scores
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