A Summary of a Decade of
Computer Conferencing Research
Curtis J. Bonk,
Indiana University
http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk
http://cowbonk.educ.indiana.edu/COW/
cjbonk@indiana.edu
Introduction
presentation will cover:
– Theory behind online
conferencing
– My journey in evaluating
that theory
– Research questions we
have raised
– Summaries of 10 research
studies
– Where we are headed
– Recommendations
What Are the Goals?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Making connections through cases.
Appreciating different perspectives.
Students as teachers.
Greater depth of discussion.
Fostering critical thinking online.
Interactivity online.
Understand different ways to foster interaction.
New Theories
• Situated Learning--asserts that
learning is most effective in authentic, or real world,
contexts with problems that allow students to
generate their own solution paths (Brown, Collins, &
Duguid, 1989).
• Constructivism--concerned with
learner's actual act of creating meaning (Brooks,
1990). The constructivist argues that the child's mind
actively constructs relationships and ideas; hence,
meaning is derived from negotiating, generating, and
linking concepts within a community of peers (Harel
& Papert, 1991).
Learner-Centered Learning Principles
From American Psychological Association, 1993
Cognitive and Metacognitive Factors
1. Nature of the learning process
2. Goals of the learning process
3. Construction of knowledge
4. Strategic thinking
5. Thinking about thinking
6. Context of learning
Developmental and Social Factors
10. Developmental influences on
learning
11. Social influences on learning
Individual Differences
12. Individual differences in learning
13. Learning and diversity
14. Standards and assessment
Motivational and Affective Factors
7. Motivational and emotional influences
8. Intrinsic motivation to learn
9. Effects of motivation on effort
Sociocultural Ideas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shared Space and Intersubjectivity
Social Dialogue on Authentic Problems
Group Processing and Reflection
Collaboration and Negotiation in ZPD
Choice and Challenge
Mentoring and Teleapprenticeships
Instructional Scaffolding & Electronic Assist
Assisted Learning (e.g., task structuring)
– teacher as facilitator, co-learner, consultant.
Interdisciplinary Community of Learning
• Portfolio Assessment and Feedback
Taxonomy: Level of
Collaborative Tool
(Bonk, Medury, & Reynolds, 1994)
Level 0: Stand Alone Tools
Level 1: E-mail and Delayed Messaging Tools
Level 2: Remote Access/Delayed Collab Tools
Level 3: RT Dialoguing and Idea Gen Tools
Level 4: RT Collaboration (text only)
Level 5: Cooperative Hypermedia
Level 6: Tools That Don’t Fit Nicely
Electronic Conferencing:
Quantitative Analyses
•
•
•
•
•
Usage patterns, # of messages, cases, responses
Length of case, thread, response
Average number of responses
Timing of cases, commenting, responses, etc.
Types of contributors/session
– e.g., percent of instructor contribution
• Types of interactions (1:1; 1: many)
• Data mining (logins, peak usage, location, session length,
paths taken, messages/day/week), Time-Series Analyses (trends)
• Surveys on attitudes
Electronic Conferencing:
Qualitative Analyses
• General: Observation Logs, Reflective
interviews, Retrospective Analyses, Focus
Groups
• Specific: Task Phase & Semantic Trace
Analyses, Talk/Dialogue Categories (Content
talk, q’ing, peer fdbk, social acknowledgments,
off task)
• Emergent: Forms of Learning Assistance,
Levels of Questioning, Degree of Perspective
Taking, Case Quality, Participant Categories
Forms of Electronic Teaching:
1. Social Acknowledgment
2. Questioning
3. Direct Instruction
4. Modeling/Examples
5. Feedback/Praise
6. Cognitive Task Structuring
7. Cognitive Elaborations/Explanations
8. Push to Explore
9. Fostering Reflection/Self Awareness
10. Encouraging Articulation/Dialogue
11. General Advice/Scaffolding/Suggestions
12. Management
Asynchronous Possibilities
1. Link to peers and mentors.
2. Expand and link to alternative resources.
3. Involve in case-based reasoning.
4. Connect students in field to the class.
5. Provide e-mail assistance.
6. Bring experts to teach at any time.
7. Provide exam preparation.
8. Foster small group work.
9. Engage in electronic discussions & writing.
10. Structure electronic role play.
Web Conferencing Tools
• VaxNOTES
• NiceNet
• WebCrossing
• Sitescape Forum
• COW
• FirstClass
• WebCT, Blackboard, Virtual U, etc.
Conferencing On Web (COW)
Three Basic Levels:
1. Conference (public or private)
2. Topic (e.g., special education)
3. Conversation (e.g., reading rewards)
Conferencing
On the Web
(COW)
Conference……
Conference1
Topic1
Conferencen
Topic…
Conversation1
Topicn
Conversation…
Msg1
Conversationn
Msg……n
Research on Electronic Cases
1. RT vs. Delayed
Collab
• Groups Preset by
Major
• Tchr Generated
Cases
• Local/Univ.
Networks
• Limited Instructor
Mentoring
2. Web-Based
Conference
• Grps Formed on
Interest
• Student Gen. Cases
• World Wide Web
• Extensive Instructor
and Peer Mentoring
Study #1: 1993/1994
(Bonk, Hansen, Grabner, Lazar, and Mirabelli, 1998)
• Two Semester: VAXNotes vs. Connect
• Two Conditions: (1) Real-time vs. (2) Delayed
• Subjects = 65 secondary ed majors
(5 grps: PE, Foreign Language, Social Studies, English,
Math)
• Mentors = limited instructor commenting
• Procedures:
– (1) Respond to 4 cases in small groups
– (2) Respond to peer comments
Research Questions: Study #1
1. What social interactions occur in real-time
& delayed?
2. How code electronic social interaction
patterns?
3. How do case size & complexity affect grp
processing?
4. Do RT or delayed foster > discuss depth &
quality?
5. Do shared experiences stimulate grp
intersubjectivity?
Some Findings From Study #1
• Delayed Collab > Elaboration
– 1,287 words/interaction vs. 266 words/interaction
• RT Collab > Responses
– 5.1 comments/person/case vs. 3.3 comments/person
•
•
•
•
•
•
Low off-task behaviors (about 10%)
Rich data, but hard to code
Students excited to write & publish ideas
Minimal q’s and feedback
Interaction inc. over time; common zones
Some student domination
Study #1. 1993-94
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Content
Questions
Peer Responses
Off-Task
Real Time
Delayed
Example of real-time
dialogue:
• Come on Jaime!! You're a slacker.
Just take a guess. (October 26, 1993,
Time: 11:08:57, Ellen Lister, Group 5).
• How might he deal with these
students? Well, he might flunk them.
He might make them sit in the corner
until they can get the problem
correct...I don't know.
(Um...hello...Jaime where is your
valuable insight to these problems?)
(October 26, 1993, Time: 11:19:37,
Ellen Lister, Grp 5).
Example Continued...
• I agree with Ned to have the students
compare their two answers. They can
learn how to estimate better and that
is useful in real life in shopping for
groceries, etc... (October 26, 1993,
Time: 11:20:23, Jaime Jones, Group
5.)
• I'm impressed Jaime. Does this mean
that you are too good for us?
(October 26, 1993, Time: 11:34:08, Ned
Example of Delayed Dialogue:
Joyce's new system offers a wide variety of
assessment forms. These different forms complement
the diverse learning and test taking abilities of her
students. Joyce seems to cover the two goals of
classroom assessment with her final exam--to increase
learning and increase motivation. Students will
increase their learning because they will not just
remember information to re[g]urgitate on an exam, but
instead they will store these items in their long-term
memory and later may be able to make a general
transfer. Joyce will increase student motivation
because she has deviated from the normal assessment
method expected by her students.
Joyce's test will probably be both reliable and
valid considering that she implemented three different
forms of tests. Joyce's test also might reduce test
anxiety. If her students know what to expect on the test
(they even wrote the questions) they more than likely
will be less anxious on exam day... (January 31, 1994,
Larry
• Entertaining,
• Creative and
controversial,
• Indirectly intimidating,
• One who set own agenda,
• Very articulate and witty.
Sample of Larry’s Comments....
• “Peace, dude, hop off the return key, save
me some stress.”
• “I am currently preparing my antigroupwork support group.”
• “I’ve noticed several people writing and saying that
they would have done this or that brilliant or
intuitive thing. I personally am brilliant or intuitive
and I think other could use a little humility. This
Karen’s made some mistakes, but we all make
mistakes, and when (dare I say), we are in her
shoes, we should expect to make some of the same
ones that confound her.”
Jeremy (Larry’s protégé)
“So come on. Someone take me
on and tell me that my ideas
on case study #1 are so much
trash! Let’s go! I’m
waiting.” (February 28, 1994,
Time: 18:23, Jeremy Phelps,
Social Studies Group.)
Conferencing on the Web
(1996-2000)
Purpose of COW Project
• Students in field experiences write cases
• Teachers and students from around the
world provide electronic mentoring
• Authentic cases and mentoring transform
learning environment
• Helps preservice teachers understand the
role of technology in education
Problems Solved By COW
• Student isolation in field experiences
• Lack of community/dialogue among teacher
education participants
• Disconnectedness between class and field
experience
• Limited reflective practices of novice teachers
• Need for appreciation of multiple perspectives
Quantitative Methods
Average results for prior to TITLE (TITLE):
• Participants per semester: 130 (>300)
• Cases per semester: 230 (624)
• Cases per student: 1.75 (same 1.80)
• Average responses per case: 4.5 (3.9)
• Average words per case: 100-140 (198)
Figure 1. Mean Scores for Quality and Relevance by
Semester
3
Quality
Relevance
Mean Score
2.5
2.16
2.04
1.94
2
2.00
1.92
1.89
Fall 1997
Spring 1998
1.5
1
Spring 1997
Semester
Relevance: Interest, intrigue, hot topic, connection, controversy
Quality: Complete, Details, Coherence, Grammer
Frequent Case Topics
Topic
Management
Motivation
Instructional Approaches
Individual Differences (special education
and gifted)
Hot Topics (e.g., teacher burnout,
violence in school, corporal punishment,
and drugs and alcohol)
Development (physical, cognitive, and
social/emotional)
Behaviorism and Social Learning Theory
Number of
Cases
312
185
178
152
83
70
57
Frequent Case Topics
Continued...
Topic
Number of Cases
Cognitive Processes (cognitive
51
learning theories)
Assessment and Grading
37
Diversity and Group Differences
28
Teacher Behavior
22
Parents
20
Curriculum
17
Teacher Knowledge/Development
14
Technology
13
Study #2. Spring, 1997: Comparison of Average
Student Case Dialogue by Scaffolding Condition
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Su
m
m
ar
y
as
e
Q
ue
st
Heavy Scaffolding
C
s/
Pr
om
pt
s
m
t
C
ed
if i
Ju
st
nju
st
U
So
ci
if i
ed
C
al
A
m
t
ck
0
Weak Scaffolding
Study #3. Fall, 1997
Unsupported
Social
Justified
Extension
Bonk, Malikowski, Supplee, & Angeli, 1998
Transcript Results
A. Peer Content Talk
31% Social Acknowledgments
60% Unsupported Claims and Opinions
7% Justified Claims
2% Dialogue Extension Q’s and Stmts
B. Mentor Scaffolding
24% Feedback, Praise, and Social
24% General Advice and Suggestions
20% Scaffolding and Socratic Questioning
16% Providing Examples and Models
8% Low Level Questioning
8% Direct Instruction & Explanations/Elab
Qualitative Methods
• 10 students interviewed
– 6 Web class students, 4 regular class students
• Interview length: 45 min
• Interview format: semi-structured
Qualitative Themes
• COW was good because…
– it involved real-life scenarios
– it connected textbook concepts
– feedback from multiple sources was
available
• COW wasn’t always a priority because...
– other assignments had earlier due dates
– it wasn’t always emphasized
– lengthy submission time = procrastination
Still More Qualitative Themes...
• Mentor feedback could be better by…
– having more of it
– having it more frequently
– using it to prompt and push
• The international perspective was…
– intriguing and interesting
– a way to see cultural differences
– a way to see how technology can be used
Overall Major Findings
• COW enhanced student learning
– provided a link between classroom and field
– encouraged learning about technology
• COW extended student learning
– students got feedback from outside their immediate
community
– students saw international perspective
• COW transformed student learning
– students took ownership for learning
– students co-constructed knowledge base
Qualitative Themes Continued...
• Students were attracted to cases that…
– had interesting titles
– were on familiar topics
– were on controversial topics
– they had opinions about
• Peer feedback was appreciated but not deep
• Mentor feedback was apprec. & motivating
Study #4: COW, Spring 1998
(Bonk, Malikowski, Supplee, & Dennen, 2000)
• Two Month Conference (One Condition)
– 3 discussion areas (IU, Finland, and Cultural
Immersions)
• Subjects = 110 students
(80 US and 30 Finnish students)
• Mentors = 2 AIs, 1 supervisor, 4 coop tchrs, 3
conference moderators.
• Videoconferences + Web Conferences
COW Data Collected
1. Log Files
a. # of Postings (1,127; 666 US, 461 Finn)
b. Number of Cases (173) (140 IU; 33 Finnish)
c. Words/Post (139 words)
d. Responses (3.7 per/case US; 14.0 Fins)
2. 67 Case Threads (33 Finnish, 34 US)
3. 65 Student Attitude Surveys
4. 6 Student Interviews so far (3 female, 3 male)
Finnish Cases Were Longer and more
Reflective and Often Co-Authored
Do not leap ahead, do not lag behind
1. Author: Maija
Date: Mar. 4 5:00 AM 1998
Do not leap ahead, do not lag behind
Marya Ford Washington has stated that "I often find some children leaping and flying
ahead and others dawdling and lagging behind. At times I am faced with the unhappy
decisions whether to abandon the slower end or ignore the other. If I must face this
decision regularly in a group of seven 'like ability' students, how often, I wonder, must
regular classroom teachers be forced to "lose" one end or the other."
(Gifted Child Today, November/December 1997)
Is it possible that the pupils could progress with their own speed so that only the minimal
level would be set by the teacher? Often, in school there are situations when a pupil has
already done what is required, and s/he wants to go on but the teacher prevents it by
saying "Wait, until I teach it first! Otherwise you might learn it in a wrong way." In
small classes it is easier for the teacher to let the children progress at their own speed
and s/he is able to guide them even though they would be at different stages. In big
classes it is much more difficult to carry out this kind of teaching method. Can a teacher
handle the class and be sure that everybody progresses if the pupils are at different
stages? Is it possible for a teacher to somehow handle a classroom without constantly
saying "Wait"?
Continued...
Lets consider a math class in an elementary school as an example.
Often a teacher teaches the new subject area and after that pupils
practice counting those exercises. When a pupil has finished s/he
receives extra exercises, or s/he is asked to do some work in other
subjects but s/he is not allowed to continue further in the math book.
Should the pupil be allowed to continue further on her/his own if
s/he wants to? There is a danger that if s/he continues s/he will make
more mistakes than if s/he waits until the teacher has taught the next
step in the subject area. However, is it dangerous to do mistakes? Do
teachers suppose that outside school there is always someone to tell
what to do and how to do it in a right way?
Marya Ford Washington states in her summary: "It is painful to
consider that a good portion of America's gifted and talented
students spend most of their elementary and middle school careers
learning to be average. It is even more painful to admit that they
usually succeed." The same seems to apply to Finland. How could we
solve this problem? Maarit & Maija
Vertical Mentoring Examples
9. Author: Jerry Cochey ( Mentor)
Date: Mar. 11 1:46 PM 1998
To shift from teacher centered classrooms to child centered classrooms
and learning takes time, patience and a commitment to the idea that
students are responsible for their own learning. Even in this age of
enlightenment(?), we think that a quiet, teacher controlled
classroom shows learning, while research shows that active, talking,
sharing of learning experiences with peers is more productive. Be
patient, it takes a long time to have students change to being
responsible for their own.
8. Author: Jerry Cochey ( Mentor)
Date: Mar. 11 1:54 PM 1998
As each of you have noted, teachers need to continue to
supervise/coordinate learning. How much freedom is given to
students depends on what you know they can accomplish without
direct supervision. Master teachers select what methods are
appropriate and effect for a given student or group of students.
Sample Finnish Case
1. Author: Satu
Date: Feb. 25 4:07 AM 1998
It is very positive that new learner-centered teaching methods are tried out
throughout the educational system, for example in teacher training.
However, sometimes we wonder if we have gone from one extreme to
another.
It takes time before the students/learners learn to take responsibility of their
own learning and even when they do it should not mean that
teachers/tutors are completely released from their responsibilities.
It happens too often that teacher/lecturer comes and tells us to go to the
library and find some material about the subject s/he was supposed to
teach us. After 45 minutes, meanwhile the lecturers enjoy a nice cup of
coffee, we are supposed to come back with a nice mind map and share our
deep understanding about the subject with others.
If this is the best that learner-centered teaching methods can offer then we
think we have failed. Too often these fancy words are just used to let the
teacher out of hook. Of course it is easier for them, but we feel that it is
awful waste of time, resources and expertise.
Satu, Päivi, Johanna, Hanna
Horizontal Finnish Mentoring
12. Author: Leena Date: Mar. 30 11:52 AM 1998
This case is something I feel very close to. I have been trying struggle with
finding ways to be a teacher in a new way, trying to think everything
from the students' perspective, to challenge my own old traditions of
teaching and try to seek ways which the I could find ways of studying
things together with the students. What really puzzles me is that these
different "projects" have had such extremely different lives. I definitely
loath the idea that a teacher would "send the students to the library and
come back with a mind map" with the only purpose of having an easy
time. But, the problem is that even the simplest thing such as a mindmap, which I've used quite often myself, can lead to so many different
kinds of results. I've learnt during my short stay in the Department of
Teacher Education......What I really don't know yet is how to be a
proper supporter of these processes for students. I have succeeded in
many contexts but feel that there are so many areas to achieve. In the
end, finding the "right" path is really a matter of mutual understanding
between students and teachers, open discussion, with mutual trust.
Without such dialogue, nothing can be developed. - Leena
Vertical U.S. Mentoring
14. Author: Jerry Cochey (Mentor)
Date: Mar. 30 1:39 PM 1998
Leena,
You are right about finding the "right" teacher in
you with the help of students and discussion. But
remember that being a teacher is not setting on a
style the first year and keeping it for 30-40 years.
The outstanding teachers continually grow,
develop and change as they find new/better ways
to teach. And of course, teaching should change
with the students needs too. So, Leena, continue
your quest!
Horizontal/Vertical Back
15. Author: Leena
Date: Apr. 22 10:31 AM 1998
Jerry - you are quite right about pointing out the term "right
teacher" in my comment. I did not mean that it would equal a
particular style for life, but, in fact, exactly what you also
write, being sensitive to different kinds of students, different
kinds of contexts, different kinds of subjects, themes, goals
etc. and finding ways to guide students and organize teaching
in a way that students find sensible and meaningful. This is
an extremely difficult job to do, but, on the other hand, very
very interesting. When you think you "know" something you
suddenly notice that there is very little that you "know". So,
really you can never say that you have reached the point
when you are "ready", that you have reached the goal. Leena
Justified Statement (Finnish)
3. Author: Kirsi
Date: Mar. 6 8:11 AM 1998
Why not let the student study math further by himself and the
teacher could help him whenever the teacher has time. At
least some of the math study books are so designed that one
page has examples that teach you how to solve the problem
and then on the next page there are exercises. I personally
hate being said 'wait' since when I'm interested in something
I want to go on and learn more and not wait. This way I think
the child learns to be responsible of his own learning. If I
quote dear mr Vygotsky here again, the teacher
should be sensitive to see where the child's proximate zone of
development is and to help him 'over' it. The teacher's task is not
to try to keep the child on the level he has reached but to help
him learn more if he is interested…
Unjustified Statements (US)
24. Author: Katherine
Date: Apr. 27 3:12 AM 1998
I agree with you that technology is definitely taking a large part in the
classroom and will more so in the future with all the technological advances that
will be to come but I don't believe that it could actually take over the role of a
teacher…but in my opinion will never take over the role of a teacher.
25. Author: Jason
Date: Apr. 28 1:47 PM 1998
I feel technology will never over take the role of the teacher...I feel however,
this is just help us teachers out and be just another way for us to explain new work
to the children. No matter how advanced technology gets it will never be able to...
26. Author: Daniel
Date: Apr. 30 0:11 AM 1998
I believe that the role of the teacher is being changed by computers, but
the computer will never totally replace the teacher... I believe that the computers
will eventually make teaching easier for us and that most of the children's work
will be done on computers. But I believe that there will always be the need for the
teacher.
Cross-Cultural References
1. Author: Maija
Date: Mar. 20 7:12 AM 1998
(Case: Away from classroom for a week)
In Finland a phenomenon called 'campschool' has become very
popular. We do not know any corresponding term in English for
'leirikoulu', therefore we translate it to 'campschool'. Campschools
are different from normal camps in the way that they are part of
school. E.g. a class spends a week away from normal surroundings
in order to have a break from normal classroom studying and
have an authentic and exciting school week.
There are many different aims for campschools. The main aims of a
campschool mentioned at a magazine (Leirikoulu 4/97)..
You might wonder why we are talking about campschools under the
heading 'Multicultural Education'...
Caseweb Visions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intros, Expert Commentaries, Reviews
Expanded and Shrunken Case Views
Hyperlink Options
Conceptual Labels—chapters, themes,
ideas
Role Taking Options
Mentoring Scaffolds/Questions
Forced Counterpoints
Sample Mentor and Peer Feedback
Case Comparison Statistics
A Vision of what we need...
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Innovative Expert Mentoring
Sample Mentoring Programs
Success and Failure Books
Sharing and Story Telling Tools
Collaboration and Mentoring Sign Up
Ways to Build Common History
Discussion and Dialogue Tools
More Pedagogical Experimentation
Experiment with Videoconferencing and Web
Spring of ‘97
Content Analysis of Online Discussion in Ed Psych
Course
(Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2001, Instructional Science)
Purpose and Questions of this Study
•
•
•
•
•
To understand how graduate students interact online?
What are inter patterns with starter-wrapper roles?
What is role of instructor in weekly interactions?
How extensive is social, cog, metacog commenting?
How in-depth would online discussions get?
– And can conferencing deepen class discussions?
Research Methodology
• Graduate educational psych course
– traditional class + FirstClass online discussion
– students play roles of “starters” and
“wrappers”
• Analyses:
– Quantitative analysis for 12 weeks
– Qualitative analysis for 4 randomly chosen
weeks
• -- Content Analysis & Interactivity map
Dimensions of Learning Process
(Henri, 1992)
1. Participation (rate, timing, duration of messages)
2. Interactivity (explicit interaction, implicit
interaction, & independent comment)
3. Social events (statements unrelated to content)
4. Cognitive events (e.g., clarifications,
inferencing, judgment, and strategies)
5. Metacognitive events (e.g., evaluation,
planning, regulation, and self-awareness)
Graduate Course Findings
• Participation
+ Most participated once/week
+ Student-centered & depend on starter
+ Posts more interactive over time
+ Lengthy & Cognitively Deep
Ave post: 300 words & over 18 sentences
• From 33 words to over 1000 words
•
– Some just satisfied course requirements
Findings Continued
(see Henri, 1992)
• Social (in 26.7% of units coded)
– social cues decreased as semester progressed
– messages gradually became less formal
– became more embedded within statement
• Cognitive (in 81.7% of units)
– More inferences & judgments than elem clarifications
and in-depth clarifications
– Cog Deep: 33% surface; 55% deep; 12 both
• Metacognitive (in 56% of units)
– More reflections on exper & self-awareness
– Some planning, eval, & regulation & self q’ing
of
St
ra
ts
Ap
pli
c
Ju
dg
me
nt
Inf
er
en
cin
g
Cl
ar
if
InDe
pt
h
Cl
ar
if
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Ele
m
Percent of Coded Units
Cognitive Skills Displayed in Online
Conferencing
Cognitive Skills
Re
g/
Q
Se
'in
lfg
Aw
ar
en
Re
es
fle
s
ct
on
Ex
pe
r
Pl
an
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Ev
al
Percent of Coded Units
Metacognitive Skills Displayed in Online
Conferencing
Metacognitive
Skills
Surface vs. Deep Posts
Surface Processing
In-depth Processing
• making judgments without
justification,
• stating that one shares
ideas or opinions already
stated,
• repeating what has been
said
• asking irrelevant questions
• i.e., fragmented, narrow,
and somewhat trite.
• linked facts and ideas,
• offered new elements of
information,
• discussed advantages and
disadvantages of a situation,
• made judgments that were
supported by examples
and/or justification.
• i.e., more integrated,
weighty, and refreshing.
Level of Cognitive Processing:
All Posts
Both
12%
Surface
33%
Surface
Deep
Deep
55%
Both
Starter Centered Interaction:
Week 1
Scattered Interaction (no starter):
Week 4
Synergistic
Interaction:
Week 8
General Findings & Concerns
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Online Read > 6,000 words/week
Starter role is more impt than wrapper.
Hard to assume role & discuss chapter
Need less structure, still need dates/pt
Students comments were fairly deep
Instructor encouraged interactions
Few heated debates
Recommendations
• Structure online discussions
– e.g., get them to use subject line better.
• Try out various pedagogical strategies
– pedagogy before technology!
• Encourage student interaction and debate
• When done, have them print out transcripts!
– Can take the class with them when done!
• Realize that diff conferencing software and
features serve diff instructional purposes
• Try other analyses: e.g., retrospective.
Conferencing Work
(2001-2002)
Just how smart are Starter-Wrapper
discussions in the Smartweb?
Wisconsin Distance Teaching and
Learning Conference Proceedings,
August 2001
Brian Beatty, Indiana University, UNext
Curtis Bonk, Indiana University,
CourseShare.com
Starter-Wrapper Discussions
• Student-centered discussion
• Multiple roles for students
– Starting a discussion
– Contributing
– Wrapping a discussion
• Instructor’s role
– Facilitate
– Model
Research Questions
•
•
•
•
How often do social cues occur?
How often do expert references occur?
How often do peer references occur?
Does discussion depth vary between
elementary and secondary pre-service
teacher groups?
• Does discussion depth vary between
teacher groups?
Study Methods
•
•
•
•
•
Thirty undergraduate preservice teachers
Class meets online, with two exceptions
Students read cases, text--then discuss online.
Participate once per week
Five weeks of discussion (2, 4, 6, 8, 10)
– 165 student posts
• Two discussion groups – elem and secondary
– N=15 for each
• Content analysis
– Modified framework (Henri 1992)
Content analysis
• Five dimensions
– Participation – simple count
– Depth of of cognitive processing - Surface vs.
deep
– Social cues - presence
– Interaction – referencing peers
– Referencing experts – text citations
• Multiple coders
Social Cues
• Post openings – “Wow, all of this psychology
stuff just blows right over my head … fancy
mumbo-jumbo … eek!”
• Personal statements – “I’m feeling great …”
• Apologies – “Sorry everybody, I am the
discussion starter and I didn’t realize it! Oops!
• Jokes, compliments, emoticons, verbal support
Referencing Peers
• “Melinda mentions that it’s easier to …”
• “I agree with George that incentives can
definitely do …”
• “… in reply to Nancy’s comments about
teacher’s jobs …”
Referencing Experts
• Formal citations
– “Learners must individually discover and transform
information if they are to make it their own (Slavin,
270)”
– “They are listed and explained in depth on pages
278-279.”
• Informal references
– “… the different teaching techniques as described in
Slavin, but …”
– “I don’t think teachers should … as the Slavin book
pointed out.”
Findings: Participation
Words per message
600
500
Words
400
Elementary
300
Secondary
200
100
0
Week
Findings: Cognitive Depth
Cognitive depth
# of Messages
25
20
Surface
15
Deep
Linear (Deep)
10
Linear (Surface)
5
0
Week
Findings: Social Cues
Social cues per message
2.5
Social cues
2
1.5
Elementary
Secondary
1
0.5
0
2
4
6
Week
8
10
Findings: Referencing Peers
References per message
Referencing Peers
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Elementary
Secondary
2
4
6
Week
8
10
Findings: Referencing Experts
References per message
Referencing Experts
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Elementary
Secondary
2
4
6
Words
8
10
The Pedagogical TICKIT:
Teacher Institute for
Curriculum Knowledge about
the Integration of Technology
Curt Bonk
Lee Ehman
Emily Hixon
Lisa Yamagata-Lynch
Indiana University
Presented at AERA, 2001, in review,
Technology and Teacher Education
Overview of TICKIT
•
•
•
•
Year-long school-based program
25 teacher in 5 rural schools
Thoughtful infusion of technology
Builds teacher cadres in schools
Overview of TICKIT (con’t)
• Two classroom technology projects
taught
• Action research and reporting
• Asynchronous conferencing in Virtual U
– Critical friends
– Reading reactions
– Online debates
Research Questions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Frequency of discussion categories
Dialogue content
Dialogue depth
Justification (support of claims)
Scaffolding and apprenticeship
Attitudes toward dialogue
Critical Friend Post Example
“Beverly: Before I forget, I want to thank you
again for your invaluable help at the ICE
conference. I get used to using a
particular piece of equipment or program,
and it’s hard for me to adapt quickly. You
saved the day. One thing I have learned
from using technology is that we need to
depend upon each other for support. We
are all in this boat together.”
Findings: Overall Frequencies
of Online Assisted Learning
• Most frequent:
– Feedback & Praise
28%
– Social Acknowledgement 25%
– Encouraging Articulation 13%
Weaving and
Summarizing
Management
General
Advice/Scaffolding
Encourage
Ariticulation
Foster Reflection
Push to Explore
Elaborations and
Explanations
Task Structuring
Feedback/Praise
Modeling and
Examples
Direct Instruction
Questioning
Acknowledgement
Forms of Learning Assistance
Figure 1. Forms of Learning Assistance in
TICKIT Activities
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Findings: Peer Social Discourse
• Focus: 50% on teaching and school experience
• Off Task: 7% total; nearly all in critical
friends
• Referencing: ~50% more peer praise in critical
friends
• Referencing: to own teaching 3 times more
than others
• Justification: 77% claims unsupported; 20%
referenced classroom & other experience
• Depth: ~80% surface level
Findings: Summary
• Feedback, praise, social acknowledgement most
frequent
• Critical friend dialogue involved more peer
support, help requests, social acknowledgement
• Reading reactions & debates involved more
content focus
• Critical friend postings perceived more
beneficial to classroom practice
• Reading reactions & debates viewed as “just
another task”
Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Online
Collaboration Among Pre-Service Teachers in
Finland, Korea, and the United States
(In Review, Computer-Mediated Communication)
Kyong-Jee (KJ) Kim
Curtis J. Bonk, Ph.D.
School of Education
Indiana University, Bloomington
(to present at AERA, 2002, New Orleans)
Why study multicultural issues
in online collaboration?
 Online learning is going global in terms of
its diverse student population.


Use of computer conferencing tools to
negotiate and construct meanings through
learner collaboration.
Lack of research on multicultural dimensions
of learner collaboration in online
environments.
Purpose of the Study
• To investigate online collaborative
behaviors among preservice teachers
from three different cultures, and to
ferret out cross-cultural differences
in their online collaborative
behaviors.
Research Questions
• Are there cross-cultural differences in learner’s
online collaborative behaviors?

If cross-cultural differences are found,
what factors seem to cause such
differences?

What are the implications of such crosscultural differences for designing,
developing, and delivering online learning?
Sample & Data Sources
• An undergraduate level ed psych course taught
on COW. Create 2 cases and reply to 6-8 peer
cases.
• In Spring 1998, 30 students and 5 instructors in
two Finnish universities and 88 students and 7
instructors from one American university
participated in COW.
• In Fall 1998, 21 students and 1 instructor in a
Korean university were added to COW.
Data Analysis
• Descriptive statistics.
• A content analysis using Curtis & Lawson’s
coding scheme to describe utterances in online
collaboration.
• A qualitative analysis using data from:
–
–
–
–
Student discourse in COW
Post collaboration questionnaire
Student interviews
Videoconferencing
Behavior Categories
Codes
Planning
GS
Group Skills
OW
Organizing Work
IA
Contributing
Seeking Input
Description
Initiating Activities
HeG
Help Giving
FBG
Feedback Giving
RI
Exchanging Resources and Information
SK
Sharing Knowledge
CH
Challenging Others
EX
Explaining or Elaborating
HeS
Helping Seeking
FBS
Feedback Seeking
Ef
Advocating Efforts
Reflection/
Monitoring
ME
Monitoring Efforts
RM
Reflection on Medium
Social Interaction
SI
Social Interaction
Online Postings Summary (1)
• Finland and US conferences
Conference
Topics
Cases
# of Cases
per
Participant
# of Postings # of Posts per
Participant
Finland
14
32
0.9
417
11.9
U.S.
22
114
1.2
577
6.1
Total
36
146
994
Online Postings Summary (2)
• Korean conference
Topics
Cases
10
28
# of Cases
# of Postings
per
Student Instructor
Participant
1.3
163
7
(96%)
Total
(4%)
170
# of Posts
per
Participant
7.7
Student & Instructor Participation
Conference
Finland
U.S.
Conference
Totals
Postings by
students
366
397
763
(88%)
(69%)
(77%)
Postings by
instructors
51
180
231
(12%)
(31%)
(23%)
Total
417
577
994
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Average Individual
Postings
Finland U.S.
12.2
4.5
10.2
25.7
Students’ Participation in Own
and Other Groups
Conference
Finland
U.S.
Conference
Totals
Postings by
group members
135
366
501
(36.9%)
(92.2%)
(65.7%)
Postings by
Other group
231
31
262
(63.1%)
(7.8%)
(34.3%)
Total
366
397
763
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Online Collaboration
Behaviors by Categories
Conferences (%)
Behavior
Categories
Finland
U.S.
Average
0.0
0.0
0.0
Contributing
80.8
76.6
78.7
Seeking Input
12.7
21.0
16.8
Reflection/
Monitoring
6.1
2.2
4.2
Social
Interaction
0.4
0.2
0.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
Planning
Total
Online Collaboration Analysis (Korea)
Korean
Behavior
Categories
Planning
Contributing
Seeking Input
Code
totals
Code
percent
GS
0
0
OW
0.0
0.0
IA
0
0
HeG
2
2
FBG
1.3
1.3
RI
44
44
SK
28.4
28.4
CH
2
2
EX
1.3
1.3
HeS
1
1
FBS
0.6
0.6
Ef
36
36
Reflection/
Monitoring
ME
3
3
RM
1.9
1.9
Social Interaction
SI
15
9.7
155
100.0
Total
Findings from the
Quantitative Analysis
• Low participation rate of instructors across all
the groups.

A majority of utterances fell into the
“contributing” category.

Cross-cultural differences in “Seeking
Input,” “Reflection/ Monitoring,” and
“Social Interaction” behaviors.

Differences in the intercultural
participation levels across cultures.
Differences in Reflection Behaviors
• A Finnish case on student motivation (ME)
“As a result of this discussion so far, we have made some
conclusions dealing with students’ motivation to learn.
We agree that it is impossible to motivate students
deliberately. There is not any specific act that can be
used to increase students’ motivation. According to
McCombs, almost everything that teachers do in the
classroom has a motivational influence on students …
Intrinsic motivation and self-regulation strategies are
also important and these can be supported by successful
external supports. Contextual conditions and teachers’
beliefs and practices are essential in fostering students’
intrinsic motivation.”
Differences in Feedback
Seeking & Giving
• A U.S. case on disciplinary problems (FBS)
“One day I come into teach the class and one of the
twenty students is very quiet. He seemed alright at the
time of teaching, but towards the end he just starts
crying for no reason. Then, I asked him if there was a
problem at home. That is when he starts to really cry. …
The questions that were raised in my head were: 1. How
involved should I get?, 2. Should I call the family and tell
them what happened?, 3. Should I tell the other teachers
and see what we all can do?”
Differences in Feedback
Seeking & Giving (cont.)
• A U.S.
case on disciplinary problems (SK)
“One way to manage time and memories is by using
planners and hall passes. I am familiar with a high school
where students are required to carry their planners with
them at all times. They have a certain number of passes,
hall, bathroom, whatever, to use during the school year. At
the end of the year, there is a reward for having passes
remaining in their books. No one is allowed out of class
without proper documentation. If they forgot something in
their lockers, they had to use a pass. After a while, they
begin to realize that those are wasted moments in their
school days. This teaches them responsibility for their
actions.”
Differences in Social
Interaction Behaviors
• Social Interactions Among Korean students
- Well, like a cup of coffee, may this new thing be relaxing (I am
praying now). It must be the beginning, so I am happy now. I
wonder whether someone would reply to me. I am a little bit
nervous ‘cause I am not so familiar with Web conferencing.
- Sister Sunny, take care of yourself, and I hope your health will
be good soon. I’m not accustomed to Web conference, either,
but it is a good chance to participate. Please, cheer up!
- Thank you for your interest in my health, but I’m all right
now. Just before, my long message to you has gone by my slight
mistake, so I am sad (crying). And, sorry for my late reply to
you.
Communication Styles & Culture
• Low context communication
– Focuses on explicit verbal message
– U.S. Finland, and most of the Western cultures
• High context communication
– emphasizes how intention or meaning is conveyed
through the context (e.g., social roles, positions,
etc.)
– Korea and most of the Asian cultures
• Importance of social interaction in the high
context communication culture
Findings from the
Qualitative Analysis

U.S. students more actionoriented and pragmatic in
seeking results or giving
solutions.

Finnish students were more
group focused as well as
reflective and theoretically driven.

Korean students were more socially
and contextually driven.
Communication Barriers to
Cross-cultural Communication
• Exchanges between two Korean students
– To Sung-in, as a group member, let’s try to be active in
every process during this class. And, I’d like to know
more of the problem on geometry education with some
examples (if possible). [FBG]
– To Hara. Thanks for your advice, but I’m doing my
best for this conference. I will study hard in the class
and will show nice attitude. [SI]
– To Sung-in. We have some misunderstanding to each
other probably owing to language gap. I didn’t intend to
judge or insult you, but you seemed to be too serious. [SI]
Implications

Instructors have a key role in facilitating
effective cross-cultural communication (e.g.
social interaction activities for students from
high context cultures).

Instructional designers and software developers
need to build learning tools that address
learner needs from different cultures (usability
tests in different cultures.

Online learners need prior examples or case
transcripts highlighting cultural differences in
communication styles.
Problem-Solving Exercises in Military Training:
Communication Patterns During Synchronous
Web-based Instruction Computers in Human
Behavior, Special Issue on Computer-Based Assessment of
Problem Solving; Orvis, Wisher, Bonk, & Olson, in press
Three Phases of AC3-DL
I. Asynchronous Phase: 240 hours of
instruction or 1 year to complete; must score
70% or better on each gate exam
II. Synchronous Phase: 60 hours of
asynchronous and 120 hours of synchronous
III. Residential Phase: 120 hours of training
in 2 weeks at Fort Knox
Teams Collaborate on:
Mission Analysis

Information and critical reflection on:






terrain and weather,
enemy forces,
facts, assumptions, limitations,
specific tasks, implied tasks,
assets available, and
additional considerations,
Results
(Bonk, Olson, Wisher, & Orvis, in review)
•
•
•
•
All had access to technology
Enjoyed the course, excellent technologies
Favored sync over asynchronous
All pointed to ways to address high
attrition
• Perceived training transfer
• Learned to work as a team
Overall frequency of interactions
across chat categories (6,601 chats).
Mechanics
15%
Social
30%
On-Task
55%
Sample Social Interactions
“Good Morning”
“what up hows the kids”
“Kids are great we made breakfast for Mom
(wife)”
“Did you go out for a run last night?”
“tell her I said happy mothers day”
“3 miles in 24 mins all hills”
“If God had meant for us to run, he wouldn’t
have given us tanks”
Social, mechanics, and on-task behaviors in
the chat interactions over time.
On-Task
Social
Mechanics
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Month 1,2
Month 3,4
Month 5,6
Some Electronic Learning
Research Results
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Participation patterns change from reg class.
Distinct cultural differences in participation.
Minimal off task behaviors, but social is impt.
Delayed collab more elaborate, R-time lurk.
E-mail partic decreases, exam prep partic inc.
Students are too nice on the Web.
Students need incentives and structure.
Student can quickly generate 100’s of cases.
Mentor fdbk, structuring, & q’ing, no model.
Student comments lack justification.
Still More Results...
11. Technology changes class contributors.
12. Results and interaction patterns vary.
13. Increased group cohesion over time.
14. Role can help; multiple roles possible.
15. Start discussion more impt than wrapping
16. Minimal disruption; Some st. domination
17. Conference expectations must be explicit.
18. Students need guidance and some choice
19. Controversy spurs the most discussion.
20. Students excited to publish ideas.
Other Lessons Learned
 Student benefit from confirmation of ideas
– Connect with others in same experience
– Instructors can provide valuable mentoring
 More reflection time for class discussions
– Quiet/shy students now participate/share
– Less political who participates
 Activities are student-centered
o Student discussion is mainly conversational.
o Every week is wearing and a burden.
– Higher expectations, more guilt since class never over
– perhaps alternate Web discussions and live meetings.
o Discussions will not happen automatically.
Still Other Findings
 Most ideas worked!
 Tools are easy to use.
 Plenty of real-world problems to discuss.
 Enjoyed candid feedback. Discussing daily items.
Finnish students more responsive and reflective,
US pragmatic and task driven, Korean social.
First response and subject title important.
o Higher quality cases do not promote higher levels
of dialogue.
o Few explicit course links.
o Did not feel more connected.
Some Final Reflections
•
•
•
•
•
Computer logged data can be reanalyzed
Control over own data is valuable
Diff tools serve diff purposes
We still lack adequate tools
There is a need for a summary of online
research methodology
Questions?
Comments?
Concerns?