JAM 2015 Session Shouting through their fingertips

© 2015 Jenzabar, Inc.
Presented by Dr. Susan J. Wegmann
Baptist College of Florida
May 29, 2015, 8:30-9:30
www.slideshare.com/swegmann
Shouting Through their Fingertips: One Model
to Evaluate Online Learner Engagement
Jenzabar’s Annual Meeting
May 27 - 30, 2015
Gaylord Opryland Resort & Convention Center
Nashville, 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 faculty
2. Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students
3. Encourage active learning
4. Give prompt feedback
5. Emphasize time on task
6. Communicate high expectations
7. 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 community
2.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

9
A Connected Stance
High Engagement
(richness of
contributions)
High Participation
(amount
contributed)

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 complex
o Self-referencing or dialogical
o From functional to sophisticated
o Currently 24 moves identified
11

Introducing a new topic
Sharing opinion
Sharing 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 struggles
Responding to a peer’s question
Giving information
Giving advice
Connecting to a previous thought
Questioning (or wondering)
Giving an example
Sharing “Grand idea”
Challenging a peer
Connecting to course content
Using humor
Couches reply to inform audience
Leading up to a conclusion
Drawing a conclusion
Challenging 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 audience
Leading up to a conclusion
Drawing a conclusion
Challenging 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 Methods
o 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 present
2. 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

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

JAM 2015 Session Shouting through their fingertips

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to JAM 2015 Session Shouting through their fingertips (20)

More from Susan Wegmann (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

JAM 2015 Session Shouting through their fingertips