VARIABLES OF INTEREST IN EXPLORING THE REFLECTIVE OUTCOMES
OF NETWORK-BASED COMMUNICATION
Mark Hawkes, Ph.D
Dakota State University
Department of Instructional Technology
Madison, SD 57042
(605) 256-5274
mark.hawkes@dsu.edu
Contributor Information: Mark Hawkes is an assistant professor and coordinator of the
Instructional Technology graduate program at Dakota State University. His research
targets computer-mediated networks and computer supported collaborative work systems
in teacher development as well as the evaluation and development of school-based
technology programs, especially those in rural settings. As a researcher in the Evaluation
and Policy Information Center at the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory in
Oak Brook, IL (1993-99) he led the evaluation of several local and statewide technology
programs. He received his doctorate from Syracuse University in instructional design,
development, and evaluation. (Address: Dr. Mark Hawkes, Department of Instructional
Technology, Dakota State University, Madison, SD 57042; mark.hawkes@dsu.edu)
VARIABLES OF INTEREST IN EXPLORING THE REFLECTIVE OUTCOMES
OF NETWORK-BASED COMMUNICATION
ABSTRACT
This study explores the opportunities presented by network-based communication to
facilitate collaborative critical reflection between teachers. The study took place with 28
elementary and middle school teachers in ten suburban Chicago schools. These teachers
were involved in a two-year technology supported Problem-Based Learning curriculum
development effort. Asynchronous network-based communications were featured as
teacher communication tools of the project with the discourse produced by the teachers as
the primary data source. The evidence showed that collaboratively produced networkbased communication was significantly more reflective than face-to-face discourse
between teachers. Face-to-face teacher meetings were highly task structured while the
electronic network was the medium of choice for discussing cause and effect and other
contextual factors associated with curriculum development. Several variables, including
teacher time, discourse focus, participant composition, and self-efficacy are discussed as
influences on network-facilitated reflective conversation.
Key Words: Critical Reflection, Tele-Collaboration, Teacher Professional Development,
Self-Efficacy.
VARIABLES OF INTEREST IN EXPLORING THE REFLECTIVE OUTCOMES
OF NETWORK-BASED COMMUNICATION
As interest in network-based communication technologies grows, so does its
presence in America’s public schools. A study conducted by the National Center for
Education Statistics (1998) indicated that during the school year of 1997, 78% of the
nation’s public schools provided teachers with access to World Wide Web, e-mail, and
resource location services. The percentage of teachers having school-based access to
distributed network resources was up from 65% during the 1995-96 school year to 75%
in the 1997-98 school year. In this new millennium, schools have achieved near ubiquity
of network resources making teachers one of the fastest growing segments of the
population gaining access to online technologies at home and on the job (Harvey &
Purnell, 1995).
Because of the growing availability of network technologies for teacher use, the
potentialor lack of potentialthese technologies have for helping teachers improve
learning and instruction is a widely debated topic of discussion. Yet, as omnipresent as
network-based technologies appear to be, it is difficult to tell from current research how
teachers use them, if at all, to build their personal professional capacity (Mehlinger,
1995). Perhaps the question of whether or not network-based communication tools build
teacher capacity should be addressed from a modified professional development
standpoint suggesting that teacher learning be more collegial, collaborative, and discourse
oriented (Lieberman, 1995; Harrington-Lueker, 1996; Kruse, 1999).
Teacher Professional Development
Professional development for teachers constitutes formal and informal processes
of knowledge and skill building in preparing teachers to address increasingly complex
and diverse student development issues. Typical professional development has included
the pursuit of advanced degrees, school- and districtwide meetings at conferences and
workshops, and personal study on selected topics using library resources (Rallis,
Rossman, Phelgar, & Abeille, 1995, p. 48). Speaking of teacher development efforts
running up through the middle of this decade, Stout (1996) reports that though
development acquired a permanent place in school culture, it lacked, save for a few
instances, the ability to improve student learning and teacher practice. Lieberman (1995)
characterized professional development activities of that type as nothing more than the
delivery of an assortment of relatively abstract ideas providing little support to the
practice of continuous learning.
The perceived shortcomings of traditional forms of professional development
have generated new visions of teacher learning over the last few years. New approaches
to development engage teachers in the pursuit of genuine questions, problems, and
curiosities in ways that leave a mark on perspectives, policy, and practice (DarlingHammond, 1998). Professional development of this type encourages teachers to reflect
on personal professional experiences and to discuss them with colleagues. Teachers need
to examine their beliefs about teaching and learning and to construct their own
knowledge in a supportive environment encouraging risk taking and reflection.
Reflective practice such as this is necessary for teachers to meet the increasingly complex
school roles they are asked to play (Borko & Putnam, 1995, p. 58-59).
Theoretical discussion on reflection is voluminous, but this review only touches
the surface of that discussion. While several conceptualizations of reflection exist,
perhaps the most widely accepted understanding of reflection in education defines it as a
social-professional activity in which teachers adapt knowledge to specific situations
(Schön, 1987, 1991). In relevance to teaching, reflection is generally seen as a means to
thoughtful application of research findings or educational theory to practice (Grimmett, et
al., 1990). While reflection is expected to lead to outcomes addressing the day-to-day
issues of teaching, many also regard it as a strategy for attempting to understand “the role
that schools actually play within a race, class, and gender divided society” (McLaren,
1989, p. 163). When teachers examine the issues of ethics, morals, and justice in
education, they are opening up discourse about the role of schools in a democratic society
(Sparks-Langer & Colton, 1991). This kind of discourse frames reflection in terms of
critical theory where teachers raise questions about such things as student assessment,
ability tracking, and classroom management in an effort to determine how they
personally address issues of equity and power. Critical pedagogy of this type, as SparksLanger and Colton (1991) declare, is a reaction against an antiseptic, value-free, purely
rational view of teaching and learning.
Making a case for the role of collaboration and collegiality in the construction of
teacher knowledge involves recognizing reflection as a component of the process.
Similarly, reflective processes themselves are richly fostered when they take place in a
context where peers, colleagues, and “critical friends” can contribute to and scrutinize
ideas, actions, and beliefs (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Placier, 1999; Wildman & Niles,
1987). Research on teacher development approaches having reflective and collaborative
qualities indicate that by using these strategies, teachers are better able to make and
sustain improved instructional practices with greater consistency than when attempting to
make these improvements alone or when supported by traditional professional
development approaches (Corcoran, 1995; Darling-Hammond, 1996; Lieberman, 1995).
Unfortunately, the research also indicates that collaborative, collegial, and reflective
professional development experiences are limited due to time, cost, and lack of will and
vision (Lichtenstein, McLaughlin, & Knudsen, 1991; Little, 1993; Lieberman, 1995). In
response, network-based communication systems have been discussed as a medium for
more collaborative reflective dialogue between teachers.
NETWORK-BASED COMMUNICATION
Network-based communication, very simply put, is a generic term that describes a
variety of systems that enable people to communicate with other people by means of
computers and networks (Romiszowski & Mason, 1996). Though network-based
communication can be defined in a manner that covers a wide range of tools adapted to a
learning environment, the most important distinction to make is the difference between
synchronous and asynchronous mediums. Both mediums are text-based, but synchronous
communication takes place in real time, just as if two people were talking on the
telephone. Examples of synchronous formats include virtual hallways, network video
conferencing, Internet relay chat, and MUDs (Multiple User Dimensions). Asynchronous
communication assumes some lapse of time (minutes or days) between the delivery of the
message and its receipt by the intended audience. Examples of asynchronous
communication formats include Internet, e-mail, newsgroups, listservs, threaded forums
and electronic bulletin boards. It is asynchronous forms of network communication that
is the focus of this study.
Several characteristics of network-based communication suggest possible
potential for reflective and collaborative discourse via the medium. Perhaps the most
notable characteristic of network-based communication is the speed with which it sends
and retrieves messages to support participant interactivity. The time and place
independence of the medium allows messages to be sent from any computer equipped
with network capability at any time, yet retrieved only when a participant logs onto a
system. The flexible time control that network-based communication provides for
engaging in discourse; investigating related information; and constructing,
communicating, and refining ideas may present what Moller (1998) suggests is the best
opportunity to fully maximize the thinking aspect of knowledge building (p. 7). The
participation capacity of technology allows discourse to occur among many participants
on multiple conversational topics. The storage capacity of the technology allows users to
retrieve segments of previous discussion to focus ongoing dialogue, challenge the
accuracy of documented messages, or eliminate the pressure and tedium of note taking.
Finally, because of its text orientation, network-based communication conversants tend to
heavily omit unnecessary linguistic material, which subsequently better orients and
organizes the structure and sequence of decision making (Condon & Cech, 1996, p. 79).
Attributes of networked-based communication technologies suggest they are at
least somewhat suited for hosting productive conversation. However, Romiszowski and
Ravitz (1997) indicate that little of what is written about the field exploring the use of
network-based communication is embedded in systematic inquiry. Furthermore, research
currently investigating computer-supported reflective outcomes takes place almost
entirely in preservice programs (Kenny et al., 1999; Mickelson & Paulin, 1997; Piburn &
Middleton, 1998; Ropp, 1998). This study addresses the gap in research that identifies
what outcomes in collaborative reflective are observed when practicing teachers use
network-based communication.
SETTING
The context for this research was in a large suburban Chicago elementary school
district as part of an Electronic Resources Supported Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
professional development program. The project began with an open invitation to schoolbased teams of teachers to develop their technology integration skills via PBL
instructional strategies. Over a two-year period, the teachers acquired technology
application and development skills in defining and delivering a technology integrated
problem-based curriculum.
In the fall of 1996, 28 teachers from 10 schools volunteered to be part of the
intensive problem-based learning development project. Six teams of teachers were from
elementary schools and four teams were from junior high schools. In the beginning of
the project, teachers received personal laptop or desktop computers (as per their
preference) on loan to them from the district for the duration of the project. Basic skills
training in computer use accompanied the receipt of the computers and teachers learned
how to use several student age-appropriate computer applications that could be integrated
into their interdisciplinary problem-based learning curricular units.
In the fall of 1997 the project began its second year of operation. Teachers
received entry-level training in electronic messaging. The training did not include more
complex functions of messaging such as storing message files, sending attachments with
messages, redirecting or forwarding messages, or filtering messages. Second-year
project events began with teacher hookup to a district local area network that was
accessible to teachers through dial-in access from home or from their network-linked
desktops at school. That connection also gave teachers access to wide area network
resources such as e-mail and Internet services. Teachers wishing to hook up their home
computer to the district network were given proprietary access. With this access,
teachers used the graphics, processing, or development tools on the system to build their
PBL curricula.
Teachers continued to revise their first-year curricular units and develop and
implement new units with assistance from district curriculum and technology specialists.
In December of 1997, asynchronous communication tools (group listserv, Internet, and email) were added to the local-area network allowing teachers to electronically
communicate more easily with their colleagues. With these tools in place and the
competency to use them, teachers were encouraged to collaborate with colleagues and
other professionals beyond their school teams.
METHODS
The primary data sets for this study included teacher scores on three key
measures: Self-reported reflective practice, observed reflective practice, and self-reported
self-efficacy. Self-report reflective practice and efficacy measures were derived from
subscales of the Learner Centered Battery (McCombs, Lauer, Bishop, & Peralez, 1997).
These scales were administered to teachers near the beginning of the second year of the
project. Observed reflective scores were obtained from both network and face-to-face
teacher communication. A baseline of teacher discourse was gathered by audio recording
several face-to-face meetings of school teams. Teachers were informed that their
meetings were being audiotaped as a part of the data collection for project evaluation.
Teachers were not aware that the level of reflective discourse was the variable of interest
in this study. Six teacher meetings were recorded beginning in February 1998 and
concluding in May 1998. This schedule closely corresponded to the timeline that
teachers had for developing their second integrated PBL unit, delivering it to their
classes, and documenting the unit for archival purposes. The recording of the face-toface meetings also ran concurrently with the collection of ongoing group network-based
communication.
Teacher use of the communication tools was voluntary and unstructured. The
unstructured nature of the network-based communication use provided an opportunity to
see how and for what purposes network use naturally evolved. This approach best served
the purpose of the study which was to determine what reflective content, if any, was
characteristic of both face-to-face and network discourse, and what factors influenced
reflective dialogue. The communications between members of the group were collected
and stored as they were produced. Messages that were posted to the common project
forums were read and archived for later retrieval by the study author.
Analysis of the face-to-face conversation began with the parceling or “chunking”
of the discourse. The chunking of the discourse was guided by principles of
distributional accountability (Schiffrin, 1987). Groups of exchanges are said to be
distributionally accountable when they perform the same function. For example, the
exchanges between discourse participants that focused on setting up the next team
meeting would be distributionally accountable by virtue of each utterance’s contribution
toward that goal. A single chunk may include several messages by as many as several
contributors. The chunking process yielded 222 face-to-face chunks as a comparative
frame to 179 network-based messages used in the analysis (see Table 1).
[Insert Table 1 about here]
The 179 network-based messages remained from a total of well over 300 messages, the
balance of which were omitted because they were posted by project staff, misposted
messages (resent, misdirected), cross-posted messages from other forums, or authored, in
part, by nonproject participants.
Three independent raters received training and participated in calibration
exercises to help them rate the reflective quality of the discourse. Each of the three raters
had doctoral degrees and a combined 40 years experience in education. The scoring
rubric used is based on Simmons et al. (1989) taxonomy for assessing reflective thinking.
This framework for analyzing the reflective discourse embraces a model of teacher
development recognizing reflection as a primary means whereby teachers build
professional knowledge (Colton & Sparks-Langer, 1993). The taxonomy of reflective
levels results from a six-year effort to test ideas guiding a preservice teacher development
program design, developing training for mentors of student teachers and beginning
teachers, and designing a set of developmental experiences for student teachers.
Simmons et al.’s (1989) seven-level taxonomy of reflective discourse ranges from
a point where responses merely describe events and appear disconnected from the
observer, to a point where responses richly describe events and attempt to explain them in
light of theory or principle (Table 2). The highest level of reflection, “critical reflection,”
provides explanations of an event or course of action with ethical and moral
consideration. Each level of the reflective taxonomy is described below.
[Insert Table 2 about here]
Ratings of the two discourse mediums were compared to better understand the
content and purpose of the messages. The alpha reliability level achieved in the face-toface was .80, while the reliability level achieved in the network-based discourse was .87.
Discourse was analyzed and categorized by primary theme. Follow-up participant
interviews were used as complementary data sources for describing and clarifying teacher
experience with the discourse medium. Emerging from this study are four variables
which appear to influence network-facilitated reflective discourse: time, discourse focus,
participant composition, and participant self-efficacy.
RESULTS
Message Content
Content analysis of the discourse shows that the face-to-face and network-based
communicated discourse serve distinct purposes. Figure 1 illustrates the several
categories that emerged from the message analysis and the percentage of messages that
fell in to each category. Briefly described, the categories include:
(1)
Social exchanges, salutations and extended greetings.
(2)
Logistics, setting of meeting times, the announcement of local and
regional conferences, and confirming the receipt of materials.
(3)
Technology use, messages and exchanges about teachers’ use of the
technology such as opening a network file folder and sending an e-mail
attachment.
(4)
General PBL development, discussed general PBL strategies such as
identifying problem questions, devising instructional activities, and
sequencing activities.
(5)
PBL and technology integration, addressed the appropriateness and
adequacy of use of technology applications for student engagement.
(6)
Review of curriculum implementation events, messages summarizing and
critiquing curriculum delivery.
(7)
Student assessment, methods and options in student assessment.
(8)
Classroom roles, ideas about if and when teacher and student might
assume the role of guide, facilitator, and cheerleader and when student
activities might be conducted individually, in small teams or as a whole
group.
(9)
Compare/contrast, messages addressing PBL issues from the perspective
of a new or external experience, or in contrast to a previous experience,
such as PBL delivery where multiage grouping is concerned.
(10)
Resource sharing, which included the exchange of PBL print information
or the posting of PBL-related Web sites.
(11)
Motivation/encouragement, peer-generated reassurance.
(12)
General topics, school-related issues not directly bearing on PBL
activities.
[Insert Figure 1 about here]
In a chi-square test of association, the overall face-to-face and network-based
2
communication distribution significantly differed from each other ( 11 = 40.54, p<.001).
Comparisons were made between face-to-face and network-based discourse on each
category to identify those where the greatest differences are found. In the first two
categories, which set the tone and parameter for participation, there is little difference
between the proportion of face-to-face and network-based communication messages.
The next five categories are directly related to the production and delivery of technologysupported problem-based learning curricula. While there are only minor differences
between face-to-face and network-based messages in the technology integration, student
assessment, and classroom role categories, there are significant differences (z-test for
percentages at the .05 level) in the general PBL development and implementation review
categories.
While categories 3 through 7 show that discussion on actual curriculum design
and development discussion is more prevalent with face-to-face discourse as the medium,
category 8 shows that network-facilitated communication appears as the medium of
choice for pondering the possibilities and/or outcomes of instructional development.
Percentages in the resource sharing and motivation categories in the message content
analysis show that more capacity-building and support activities take place in networkbased than face-to-face dialogue.
Assessing Reflective Content
Using the scores assigned by independent raters to the face-to-face and networkbased discourse, mean scores were tabulated for each of the two mediums. When the two
communication mediums were compared on their overall level of reflectiveness, an
independent t-test for equality of means between groups shows that although neither
mode of discourse achieves high overall reflective quality, computer-meditated
communication has significantly higher reflective content than does face-to-face
communication (see Table 3).
[Insert Table 3 about here]
The Trials of Time
One of the variables showing significant effects on the nature and amount of
reflective discussion is time. Initially, it was the lack of time to communicate that
prompted the use of the network forum for teacher collaboration. Eventually, even
finding time to access the communication was problematic, as a participating teacher
suggests in a post-project interview:
The big issue is time. You know, teachers are continuing to do all those things
that they have historically done, grade tons of papers, make bulletin boards,
and do personal planning. Lately, we have to document adherence to district
and state standards from our curriculum and play social worker by knowing
how to recognize an emotionally or physically abused child. And now we’re
trying to figure out what part of our day we would sit in front of a computer
and respond to a listserv.
This comment indicates that the use of network-based communication tools
provides no simple solution to achieving collaborative reflection. While many
teachers see network-based communications as an opportunity to keep in contact with
colleagues, to build new insights and skills, to gather new ideas and resources, no
teacher sees it as an easy shortcut. In all, 82% (n=23) of all the teachers participating
in the project indicated that time constrained their participation in the online discourse
in some form. Additionally, teachers who reported being most hindered in forum
participation by time were also those who had least access to wide area networks
from home. An analysis of forum and server log-file data suggests that those who do
participate in network-based communication activities may do so more when they
have access at home (see Figure 2). Judging from the times of message postings,
only 37 % of all messages are posted at the normal times a teacher might be found at
school (7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). The bulk of the postings (n=73, 41%) usually take
place in the early
[Insert Figure 2 about here]
evening hours of 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. followed by communications posted on
weekends (n=19, 11%) and in the late evening hours between 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m.
(n=16, 9%). These data not only show that the majority of network-based messages are
posted from home, but also those messages posted from home are generally most
reflective. Of all the messages rating a “4” or higher, indicating a highly reflective
message, 80% of them appear during the early and late evening hours.
Discourse Focus
When network-based communication was planned as a part of the Electronic
Problem-Based Learning project, the network was conceived as a place where teachers
would discuss the techniques of designing and developing a technology-supported PBL
curricular unit. It was hoped that the forum would be used to share examples of
curriculum ideas and activities, and assessment strategies. Yet, whatever hopes were held
for the forum, care was taken not to assert a theme or focus for the discussion for fear of
inhibiting possible discussion on any number of important topics. In the end, the lack of
discourse focus and the related inability of the discourse to adequately meet teachers’
information needs or interests proved to be an impediment to achieving reflective
dialogue.
In the teacher interviews, 9 out of the 28 teachers (32%) voluntarily indicated that
messages unrelated to the grade level in which they taught held little interest for them.
One seventh-grade teacher says:
I come from a high school background, and I am not interested at all at what
they do in 5th grade. I truly am not. I am really not interested in the PBL’s
that they have done, other than how they documented the units. That’s the
kind of thing that I would be concerned with. Other than that I would be more
interested in what they do on a junior high level.
Though teachers in grades ranging from five to eight participated in the project,
elementary teachers outnumber junior high school teachers at a ratio of almost two to
one. A tally of teacher perceptions during project-ending interviews found that the
majority of them preferred discussion that was relevant to the age-level of students they
worked with (see Table 4). A slightly higher percentage of junior high teachers than
elementary teachers were interested in a forum with a content area focus.
[Insert Table 4 about here]
Self-Efficacy
By definition, self-efficacy is “self-appraisal of one’s capability in organizing and
executing a course of action required to attain designated types of performances.” In a
study of student teachers in the Netherlands, Korthagen and Wubbels (1995) found that
“reflective” students demonstrated significantly higher levels of “personal security and
self-efficacy” than did “nonreflective” students. Colton and Sparks-Langer (1993)
suggest that reflective teachers “believe that they can make a difference in the lives of
their students.” This quality, the authors conclude, is a characteristic of self-efficacy.
Teachers involved in this study showed varying levels of self-reported efficacy.
Content analysis of all discourse corpus shows that efficacy building language and
motivation between teachers is more prevalent in network-based communication than it is
in face-to-face dialogue. Yet, when self-efficacy is analyzed against the reflective
content of all communication, the data shows that higher levels of self-efficacy do not
translate into more reflective language. A bivariate correlation comparing the results
from the self-efficacy and reflective self-awareness scales show a very low relationship
between the two discourse mediums (r = .12). The scatter plot in Figure 3 graphically
displays the relationship defined by its relatively random pattern. To improve upon the
self-report data, a second analysis of efficacy and reflection took place by replacing the
self-reported reflective scores with a rater observed reflection score.
[Insert Figure 3 about here]
The observed reflective score is derived from the rater observations made of the
network-based discourse. A mean reflective score was calculated for each teacher. Only
17 of the 28 teacher scores are used in this analysis to keep teacher averages with only a
few contributions to the dialogue from influencing the correlation. Occasionally in the
network-based discourse, the group converged on a topic that was of great interest to an
otherwise rare contributor to the on-line conversation. The topic would elicit from a
poster highly reflective input in the form of one or two contributions to the discussion,
then the poster remained silent to the discussion for the remainder of the analysis period.
To keep the analysis from being skewed and so as not to overstate the correlation
between efficacy and reflection in this study, “one-shot” types of contributions to the
discourse were eliminated. For teachers posting more reliable reflection scores covering
more than a single topic, the correlation coefficient between the self-efficacy and
observed reflectiveness scores (r = .37) not only indicates a low negative correlation,
but that some inverse relationship, although weak, may be at work here (see Figure 4).
[Insert Figure 4 about here]
The results of the comparison between the self-reported/observed reflectiveness
scores and the self-efficacy scores of participating teachers signal no significant
relationship between the two constructs. The results do suggest, however, that where
there may be a lack of self-efficacy in discourse participants, network-based
communication may enlarge that participant’s ability to make reflective contributions.
Discussion
Neither network-based communications technology nor collaborative learning are
ultimate educational goals. Rather, the media may be used to help teachers attain more
fundamental educational objectives in students’ learning. Support for teachers under
increased pressure to deliver quality educational experiences to students is needed.
Teachers are being asked to use these technologies to engage their students in the pursuit
of genuine questions, to make connections among content areas, to explore issues and
problems with personal relevance, and to work with peers and adults to improve
understanding. The new instructional strategies and outcomes technologies claim to
produce require more from teachers than merely being proficient with the software
applications; network communication technology requires a new perspective on teaching
and learning with which many teachers are unfamiliar. As Peterson (1994) suggests, “ . .
. teachers are being asked to change. They are being asked to change what they teach and
how they teach. They are also being asked to change their fundamental beliefs and
knowledge" (p. 51).
Interaction and collaboration with peers is most likely to tool teachers for the
challenges of a complex teaching environment requiring critical reflection on practice as
part of the professional capacity-building strategy. Because of the structure of the typical
school day along with the growing number of roles teachers have in schools, time for
collaboration is limited. This study shows that although levels of reflection among
teachers was not consistently high, teachers can collaboratively reach meaningful levels
of reflection when given a functionally diverse medium like network-based
communication.
As an impediment to reflective discourse, lack of time to learn about the
technology and to access it during the school day has encouraged teachers to participate
in network-mediated conversation in the evening hours. Teachers’ willingness to discuss
and be reflective on the medium on their own time prompts strong consideration for
teacher access to wide area networks at home. Most of the posts to the network forum
are generated from home as were the large majority of reflective messages. It is hard not
to emphasize the advantage of wide network connectivity for teachers at home.
Discourse focus preference raises some interesting questions about task and
participant composition. When teachers in this study convened in their face-to-face
teams to work on their PBL curricula, the transcripts of a selected number of those
meetings show that their work was highly task focused. Though these face-to-face
discussions were infused with what independent raters determined were reflective
exchanges, face-to-face discourse failed on several dimensions of analysis to reach the
levels of breadth and depth teacher reflection on network-based communication achieved.
This study finds that when there is a specified task to be done, such as identifying
instructional strategies for a particular learning outcome, the task drives the agenda.
Unless critical reflection is planned as a part of the process or becomes an objective of a
face-to-face meeting itself, reflective activities will be sporadic at best. In network-based
discourse, task driven or not, the time independence of the medium used gave
participants a chance to step outside of the minutiae of curriculum development tasks and
be more reflective by asking: “Why are we doing this? What are the long-range
consequences of this decision? What meaningful relationship does this activity have with
key learning outcomes?”
Issues of discourse focus in network communication also prompt some insights on
participant homo/heterogeneity. The advantages of diversity are numerous: new
perspectives, experiences, and contexts greatly enrich a discussion. However,
participants with entirely opposing perspectives on an issue can bring any kind of
discussion to a stalemate. The question is, how alike must participants be to reach
maximum reflective levels? Participants have to be different in some way but on what
dimensions? Gender? Race? Professional attainment? Geographical proximity? It may
be that parameters for participant heterogeneity or homogeneity rests on the nature of the
task at hand. If the task or scope is divergent, and includes entertaining a wide host of
opinions, then perhaps the broader the diversity the better. If the task is convergent and
the network forum depends on or is built around the development of a product
(curriculum, lesson plan, assessment tool, and so on), the participant diversity should be
examined relative to the teams’ capacity to constructively collaborate.
On the role of efficacy in reflective discourse, Bandura (1982) indicates that one
of the sources through which people acquire information about efficacy is through
“verbal persuasion” (p. 126). This study found the network-facilitated communication of
teachers’ rich with peer and self generated “verbal persuasion” which may have served to
elicit from self-rated lower-efficacy teachers the ability to reflect. This is consistent with
Rosenholtz’s (1988) notion that self-efficacy is an outcome of collaborative professional
development.
These data suggest if the low negative correlation and the inverse relationship
(although weak) between efficacy and reflectivity are any indication, teachers with low
efficacy scores show potential to be somewhat more reflective than their more efficacious
peers. The relative anonymity network-based communication provides, the time that
network-facilitated communication gives to be thoughtful about a contribution, the turntaking (access to floor) that the medium ensures, and the peer support available on a
collaborative electronic network combine to present an opportunity to engage otherwise
silent teachers in more reflective discussion.
Limitations to this study include the abnormally rich technology environment
present in this study that most teachers do not have access to. The volunteer nature of the
participants, who were almost all white middle-class women bring an approach to talking,
thinking, and reflecting is likely to be qualitatively different from teachers of other races
or gender. The methods also limit the study by packaging discourse in very small chunks
and by doing so constrain both the scope and extent to which reflection was analyzed. It
is certain that results would have been different if entire strands of discourse on
individual topics would have been the object of the study. Still, given the potential
network-based communication shows for engaging teachers in reflective discourse about
education, investments in computer-supported collaboration is a viable means for
producing sustained, systemic teacher growth.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1995). Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base: A cognitive
psychological perspective on professional development. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman
(Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices, (pp. 3565). New York: Teachers College Press.
Colton, A. B., & Sparks-Langer, G. M. (1993). A conceptual framework to guide the
development of teacher reflection and decision making. Journal of Teacher Education,
44(1), 45-54.
Condon, S. L., & Cech, C G. (1996). Functional comparison of face-to-face and
network-based decision making interactions. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Network-based
communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 65-80).
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Corcoran, T. C. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide
for state policymakers. Washington DC: National Governors Association.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching:
Research, policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25(6),
5-17.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hypothesis from
a national commission report. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 5-15.
Grimmett, P.P., MacKinnon, A.M., Erickson, G.L.., & Rieken, T.J. (1990).
Reflective Practice in Teacher Education. In R. T. Cliff, W. R. Houston & M. Pugach
(Eds.). Encouraging Reflective Practice in Education: An analysis of issues and
programs (pp. 20-38). New York: Teachers College Press.
Harrington-Lueker, D. (1996). Coming to grips with staff development. Electronic
Learning, 16(1), 32-43.
Harvey, J., & Purnell, S. (1995). Technology and teacher professional development
(DRU-1045-CTI). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition
and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49.
Kenny, R. F., Andrews, B. W., Vignola, M., Schilz, A., & Covert, J. (1999). Toward
guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia instruction: Fostering the reflective
decision-making of preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
(7)1, 13-31.
Korthagen, F. A. J., & Wubbels, T. (1995). Characteristics of reflective practitioners:
Towards and opertionalization of the concept of reflection. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, (1)1, 51-71
Kruse, S. D. (1999). Collaborate. Journal of Staff Development, 20(3), 14-16.
Lichtenstein, G., McLaughlin, M., & Knudsen, J. (1991). Teacher empowerment and
professional knowledge. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Stanford
University: Stanford, CA.
Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming
conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan 76(8), 591-596.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers professional development in a climate of educational
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-152.
McCombs, B. L., Lauer, P. A., Bishop, J., & Peralez, A. (1997). Researcher Test
Manual for the Learner-Centered Battery (Grades 6-12 Version). A Set of SelfAssessment and Reflection Tools for Middle and High School teachers. Available:
Info@mcrel.org Web site: http://www.mcrel.org.
McLaren, P. (1989). Life in schools. New York: Longman.
Mehlinger, H. D. (1995). School reform in the information age. Bloomington, IN:
Center for Excellence in Education, Indiana University.
Mickelson, K. M., & Paulin, R. S. (1997, March). Beyond technical reflection: The
possibilities of classroom drama in early preservice teacher education. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
Moller, L. (1998, March). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous
distance education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Peterson, P. L. (1994). Knowledge transforming: Teachers, students, and researchers
as learners in a community. In J. N. Mangieri & C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful
thinking in teachers and students: Diverse perspectives (pp. 155-180). Fort Worth:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Piburn, M. D., & Middleton, J. A. (1998). Patterns of faculty and student
conversation in listserv and traditional journals in a program for preservice mathematics
and science teachers. Journal of Research and Computing in Technology, 31(1), 78-88.
Placier, P. (April, 1999). Reflective inquiring professions (who use technology):
Rhetoric and implication in teacher education reform. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec.
Rallis, S. F., Rossman, G. B., Phelgar, J. M., & Abeille, A. (1995). Dynamic
teachers: Leaders of change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Romiszowski, A. J., & Mason R. (1996). Network-based communication. In D.
Jonasson (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology
(pp. 438-456). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Ropp, M. M. (1998). Exploring individual characteristics associated with learning to
use computers in preservice teacher preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Rosenholtz, S. (1988). Teachers’ workplace. New York: Longman.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Simmons, J. M., Sparks, G. M., Starko, A., Pasch, M., Colton, A., & Grinberg, J.
(April, 1989). Exploring the structure of reflective pedagogical thinking in novice and
expert teachers: The birth of a developmental taxonomy. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Sparks-Langer, G. M., & Colton, A. B. (1991). Synthesis of research on teachers
reflective thinking. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 37-44.
Stout, R. T. (1996). Staff development policy: Fuzzy choices in an imperfect market.
Education Policy Analysis 4(2), [Online]. Available:
http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v4n2.html/.
Wildman, T. M., & Niles, J. A., (1987). Reflective teachers: Tensions between
abstractions and realities. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 25-31.