Int. J. Cont. Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2007
Didactic interaction in e-learning: new styles for new environments Carlos Marcelo* and Victor H. Perera Department of Teaching and School Organization, University of Sevilla, Faculty of Education, 41018 Sevilla, Spain E-mail:
[email protected] E-mail:
[email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract: The processes of learning have become more complex due to the rise of new technologies, especially the internet. The possibilities of open and flexible collaborative learning have awakened the interest of teachers and researchers in investigating and understanding the conditions and features that the new learning methods can contribute. If as teachers we can be pleased about the possibilities of a pedagogic change that e-learning can bring about, as researchers we must not stop questioning ourselves about the quality of these processes of education and learning. This paper presents the results of a research in which we analyse the processes of asynchronous communication in the forums of e-learning. We have developed a system of categories that allows the analysis of the didactic interaction. We present this system, as well as the analysis of the data that we have obtained. We show the importance of attending to the elements of social communication, cognitive and didactics so that the learning in virtual environments will be developed in a more effective way. Keywords: asynchronous communication; category system; discourse; discussion forum; e-learning; interaction analysis. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Marcelo, C. and Perera, V.H. (2007) ‘Didactic interaction in e-learning: new styles for new environments’, Int. J. Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp.461–478. Biographical notes: Carlos Marcelo is a Professor of Teaching and School Organisation at the University of Sevilla. His main research concern has to do with the analysis of the process of teaching and learning in the new learning environments. He is the Head of the Master in E-learning of the University of Sevilla, and the Head of the research group, IDEA, at the University of Sevilla. Victor H. Perera holds a Master’s degree in E-learning from the University of Sevilla, and has worked on learning and IT for the past five years. Now he is working as an E-learning Designer in the enterprise, Sadiel.
Copyright © 2007 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
461
462
1
C. Marcelo and V.H. Perera
Introduction
The new forms of communication involving telematics are a great challenge when conceptualising what has traditionally been understood as communication in education. One of the most-prolific topics in the recent literature on communication in the educational context concerns the instructional use of the new technologies. It is therefore not surprising that a review of the specialised bibliography reveals many references to the concept of Computer-Mediated Communication (hereafter abbreviated as CMC). Discourse analysis is an area of knowledge bringing together researchers from very different fields. The excellent review made by Van Dijk (2000, p.23) suggests that discourse is used by people to communicate ideas or beliefs, which they do as more complex social events. Discourse analysis inevitably incorporates a study of the language used, the beliefs that are communicated and the interaction in social situations. Blanton, Moorman and Traten (1998) proposed organising the forms of communication in virtual environments, differentiating between convergent and divergent situations, depending on the interpretations of the users. Starting from that work, Shotsberger (2001) analysed synchronous dialogues in chat rooms by applying various categories: statement, beliefs, concerns, practice, wishes, intention, query and result. There have been recent attempts to go beyond the mere description of the messages in the forums of asynchronous communication, conceiving them as an opportunity to promote knowledge and learning. The landmark work of Henri (1992) propounds that asynchronous communication can be analysed from five dimensions: participative, social, interactive, cognitive and metacognitive. Later, we will look at her contribution in detail. As we have already seen, the research literature on internet forums identifies student– student interaction as an essential form of interaction in the classroom. The opportunity for interaction with other students, in both structured and informal contexts, is one of the main advantages of using text-based asynchronous communication. Bonk and King (1998) stated ‘the technological tools for learning are clearly becoming increasingly interactive, distributed, and collaborative’. However, it is asynchronous communication via the discussion group that has received most attention from researchers. Computer-mediated asynchronous communication has become a mechanism of information exchange and group interaction using a variety of electronic tools, such as e-mail, news bulletins and discussion groups (Gilbert, 2002). Jonassen et al. (1995, p.410) defines CMC as ‘the use of computer networks to facilitate interaction between geographically separated students’. Gunawardena, Lowe and Anderson (1997, p.410) rfer to CMC as an important teaching tool that ‘enables groups separated in time and space to be involved in producing knowledge actively and collectively’. A characteristic of asynchronous communication is that it can help meaningful and critical discussion (Harasim, 1990). Some research topics covering the analysis of CMC have cited the study of aspects of online communication and human behaviour: attitudes, actions and the impact of communication on social interactions and personal presentation. However, despite the interest stirred up, Mann and Stewart (2000, p.4) state that ‘it is perhaps surprising that the possibilities of conducting research via the Internet remain relatively unexplored’. A growing area of research is the examination of how technologies of asynchronous communication can help develop high-order cognitive functions: articulation, reflection and negotiation (Van Gorp, 1998; Hara, Bonk and Angeli, 2000). It is claimed that
Didactic interaction in e-learning
463
asynchronous communication has the potential to transform education, creating environments that are more focused on the students, in which they can interact with their companions. Van Gorp (1998, p.12) suggested, ‘the web is more than a space to access and deposit information. It is a place to communicate interactively and to build knowledge’. Asynchronous communication can promote the reflection and development of ideas. Hara, Bonk and Angeli (2000) suggest that asynchronous communication supports the principles of constructivist learning because it enables students to articulate, read and reflect on the concepts easily. They state that the tools of asynchronous or deferredcapacity communication enable students to have – for instance – some control over the extent to which ‘waiting time’ increases, and gives the opportunity for reflexive learning. Research must be conducted to overcome such restrictions. The analysis performed to date has focused on: 1
the type and range of electronic dialogue
2
the patterns of support of teachers and the interactions between companions within these dialogues (for example, modelling, contingency management, retroaction, instruction, query, cognitive structuring, task structuring)
3
the level of cooperation between participants
4
the forms of inter-subjectivity or shared space
5
other processes of discourse (roles, power, authority, etc.) (King, 1998).
Research into the effect of discussion groups on learning has been based on Vygotski’s idea that students internalise the orientations and guidance of more able companions when writing in collaboration. Thus, Duffy, Dueber and Hawley (1998) show that there is currently a very strong movement in education which is moving away from the predominant teaching model towards a learner-centred one, in which learning activities involve students in the investigation and solving of problems, normally in a collaborative space. They state that “electronic conferencing systems allow the instructor to (a) observe students’ contributions to the discussion, (b) include transcripts of the discussions in a portfolio for feedback or grading, (c) participate in the discussion to model critical-thinking skills, (d) interject questions and comments to coach critical thinking, and (e) provide expertise in a topic area when such inputs is required” (Duffy, Dueber and Hawley, 1998, p.53).
Bonk and Cunningham (1998) share this idea that the traditional, teacher-centred model, in which knowledge is transmitted from teacher to students, is rapidly being changed for alternative models of teaching (student-centred, constructivist and based on socio-cultural ideas), in which the emphasis is on the guidance and support for students as they learn to build their knowledge, and on the understanding of the culture and community to which they belong. Thus, a socio-cultural view of collaborative learning is sustained on the use of collaborative tools that function as mediators of socio-cultural learning processes. Davis and Brewer (1997, p.1) have focused their interest on the analysis of electronic discourse. For them,
464
C. Marcelo and V.H. Perera “electronic discourse is one form of interactive electronic communication. In the study we reserve the term for the two-directional texts in which one person using a keyboard, writes language that appears on the sender monitor and is transmitted to the monitor of a recipient, who responds by keyboard. The recipient may actually be an individual, or a group, large or small, of receivers”.
Electronic discourse is complex and has multiple facets. The authors choose to work from the field of discourse analysis for two reasons: because the different levels of discourse analysis allow textual analysis, and because it is intrinsically multidisciplinary in nature. Schrire (2002), in a recent work analysing the content of discourse in internet forums of communication, identified two models of interaction. The author analysed, among other aspects, the processes and sequences of interaction in the forums studied. For her, the “term ‘thread’ refers to an exchange of messages within a computer conferencing or forum that relate to the same question and/or that are connected by one another by explicit or implicit interaction, i.e. referring explicitly or implicitly to one or more aspects of one another message. A thread is a smaller unit of online discourse than a conference or forum” (Schrire, 2002, p.14).
Along the same line are certain studies that examine the content of transcriptions of asynchronous discourse in an attempt to analyse knowledge building in asynchronous environments ( Henri, 1992; Gunawardena, Lowe and Anderson, 1997; Hara, Bonk and Angeli, 2000; Lally, 2001). Henri (1992) developed a method for codifying asynchronous forums in order to provide a working structure for the analysis of asynchronous discourse content. According to her, the research on the content of internet forums has generally been restricted to the quantitative data of participation. The volume of messages has been converted into a measurement of the efficiency, success and flow of exchanges. Participation is measured as the number of messages transmitted, the number of servers accessed, the duration of the consultations and even the number of lines of text transmitted. Henri was one of the first researchers to focus on analysing the quality of interaction in online forums. She distinguished between participatory and interactive dimensions, and defined participation as the number of units of significance in a message in a particular forum. However, the amount of participation is not a satisfactory indicator of interaction quality. For that, she also distinguished between different dimensions of interaction: x
Explicit interaction. Any declaration that makes a clear reference to another message, person or group.
x
Implicit interaction. Any declaration that refers to, without specifically naming, another message, person or group.
x
Independent interaction. Any declaration that refers to the topic under discussion, but in which there is no comment or response regarding another comment.
Henri’s model was used by McKenzie and Murphy (2000), who found that 74% of the messages in a university online forum were interactive, with half of those being classed as explicit interaction. Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) used a theoretical approach to develop a model for analysing the transcriptions of online discussion forums. Through an analysis of content,
Didactic interaction in e-learning
465
they developed a system to analyse knowledge building in social interaction, identifying five phases in the evolution of online discourse. Other studies have centred on analysing the forms of electronic interaction, such as discussion, information sharing, reflection and formulation of high- and low-level queries. Zhu (1998) described the styles of student participation: the way someone searches for information, what they ask, what guides them, what contributes and whether the participation is vertical or horizontal. In vertical interaction, certain members of the group make use of the proposals of others with greater knowledge. In horizontal interaction, the members express their own ideas without having any prior correct responses. Together with the analysis of the dynamics of interactions in the discussion groups, various studies have concentrated on examining the quality of such interactions, studying the cognitive complexity levels of messages sent to the forums. In a previously cited work, Schrire (2002) analysed the level of learning of students in asynchronous forums, using – among other instruments – the levels identified by Bloom: knowledge, understanding, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Blanchette (2001) analysed the queries raised in an online forum, using the categories of cognitive analysis established by Aschner-Gallagher: x
Routine. Procedural aspects, structure of class discussion
x
Cognitive memory. Facts, recapitulation, clarification
x
Convergent thought. Translation, association, explanation, summary, conclusion
x
Evaluative thought.
x
Divergent thought. Preparation, synthesis, implication.
Using the works of Henri, a group of researchers at the University of Alberta (Canada) have proposed a model to analyse the interactions and learning processes in online forums (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2000; Anderson et al., 2001; Rourke et al., 2001). This system is defined by three basic dimensions: social, instructional and cognitive presence. The instructional dimension recognises that asynchronous forums represent an opportunity for the teachers to guide students’ learning. In virtual forums, as in face-toface classes, teachers and students interact, formulate queries, expound ideas, respond to questions, etc. This needs a dimension that analyses these processes from an instructional standpoint. Anderson et al. (2001) put forward the idea that the teacher performs three main roles: as a designer of teaching, planning and evaluating; as a facilitator of a social environment that leads to learning; and as an expert in content, knowing how to get students to learn. In a recent paper, Wallace (2003) presented a review and summary of research on the analysis of interaction in online contexts. The review concludes with some results that we think appropriate to reproduce. 1
Researchers have been developing models for the analysis of online teaching and learning by studying records of online discourse. These models have incorporated the dimensions related with cognitive and metacognitive social aspects. Some works have attempted to investigate students’ progress in the levels of thought in their online discussions.
466
C. Marcelo and V.H. Perera
2
Using these models, researchers have found that leading students from the sharing and exchanging of ideas to the building of knowledge is a costly task in online teaching. Students are prepared to share ideas, but not to deepen their knowledge through discourse.
3
Teachers in online teaching have different roles: facilitating or moderating discussion, responding to students individually and to the class as a whole, managing the flow of content through the tasks, etc.
4
There is much evidence demonstrating the importance of social interaction, and of the teacher’s presence in online classes.
5
The online community is a very important variable in online teaching. However, although the community’s role is important, the way in which it is exercised has not yet been investigated sufficiently.
2
Context of the research
As we have described the basis of our research, we now go on to describe the procedure and the results obtained. First, the study we present is based on the analysis of messages sent to the discussion groups of ten courses of e-learning that we have organised in the University of Seville. These courses are part of master or doctorate activities of the university. They varied in duration between six months and one year. All our e-learning courses have been carried out on the LMS WebCT platform, which enables the setting up of discussion groups in e-learning courses. The total number of students taking part in the courses was 217, with 29 instructors. Some of the latter were present throughout the courses, while others were present occasionally. The total number of messages sent to the forums of the ten courses was 5,624, distributed as displayed in Figure 1. In this case we can see something that is habitual in analysing the interaction in e-learning courses: the percentage of communications generated by students is considerably greater than that by teachers: 64.7% of messages were sent by students, against 35.3% by instructors. Figure 1
Number of messages
Didactic interaction in e-learning
3
467
Procedure for data analysis
For the analysis of the messages, we used a system of categories. This system was based on the results of the model developed by Anderson et al. (2001), which we have already mentioned. As will be remembered, those authors distinguished three great dimensions in the analysis of online interaction: social, cognitive and instructional presence. From these, and certain of the subcategories devised by those authors, we generated a system of categories. This system was applied semi-inductively: x
We created a first system of categories from the dimensions devised by Anderson et al. (2001).
x
We generated the subcategories used by those authors in their research.
x
We selected two of our forums for the initial application of the first system of categories.
x
The research team, comprising three coders, coding them independently.
x
The unit of codification chosen was the complete message. As a result, some messages could be codified with more than one category.
x
The team of codifiers who had worked independently met to find common ground in comparing the codifications made.
x
When encountering new situations that could not be included in any of the initial categories, we created a new one.
x
Each new category was defined and classified so that it could be properly integrated into the overall system.
At the end of this process, we had obtained the following system of categories for the analysis of interaction in the contexts of education via internet (e-learning) (Table 1). Once we had a system of categories with sufficient breadth and coherence regarding the chosen object of study, we proceeded to codify all the ten forums and 2,037 messages. The process of codification was facilitated by the use of the program, AQUAD 5.8, for the qualitative data analysis. For the codification, as we mentioned earlier, we used the following criteria: x
Each message analysed was codified with at least one of the three dimensions used: social, instructional and cognitive. Frequently, and logically, a message could be codified in two or three dimensions, as they correspond to complementary aspects of the instructional interaction.
x
A single message could refer to more than one topic within the same dimension. In such case, a multiple codification was made in an attempt not to lose the continuity of meaning in the content of the message.
x
The codified segments could be superimposed or nested.
468
C. Marcelo and V.H. Perera
Table 1
Category system for the analysis of interaction Teaching dimension
Defines the planning/design, facilitation and guidance of the social and cognitive processes, aimed at obtaining significant learning results from the students. Category
Subcategory
Codes
Definition
Instructional design and teaching management
References to the program, curriculum (program)
DGPR
References to the course program, schedule, content, timing
Design methods (method)
DGMT Interventions referring to the methodology or strategies guiding the progress of the program (including materials of the course itself)
Use of media, materials (media)
DGME
Interventions referring to the media (teaching materials and channels of communication) needed to carry out the activity or task (can also refer to the use of the platform)
Set norms (norms)
DGNO
Agreements on the conditions or rules that must be fulfilled for the proper progress of the program
Facilitating discourse
Tasks
Direct teaching
DDAD Identify areas of agreement/disagreement (chat)
Interventions of instructor or students attempting to focus the discussion; includes identifying agreements and disagreements on the ideas expressed. Attempts at consensus
Promote participation, discussion (participation)
DDPA
Attempts at promoting participation, discussion on a topic, encouraging, reiterating, reformulating, reinforcing the contribution of the students, helping discourse, etc.
Evaluate the efficacy of the process de communication (efficacy) (chat)
DDEP
Attempts at evaluating the efficacy of the process of dialogue by interventions expressing obstacles or facilitators to achieve the established aims
Task accomplishment
DTAR
Interventions attempting to accomplish the proposed activities of the course
Task content
DTPR
Making known the parts of the task to be performed by the students: aims to be achieved; description of the task; how, when and where to present the activity; timing
Support
DTAP
Help for either the instructor or the students during the performance of the task
Evaluation
DTEV
Interventions giving value judgements about the aim of the activity carried out by the students (students evaluate the quality of the task)
Formulate queries (Question)
DIFP
Interventions with questions about the teaching process; also requests for materials, information, elements, etc. from students
Present a new idea (Structuring)
DIES
Interventions of instructor or student attempting to start a new topic, setting up basis and foundation
Respond to explicit questions (Reply)
DIRP
Interventions responding to explicit questions raised during the teaching process
Didactic interaction in e-learning Table 1
469
Category system for the analysis of interaction (continued) Teaching dimension
Defines the planning/design, facilitation and guidance of the social and cognitive processes, aimed at obtaining significant learning results from the students. Category
Subcategory
Codes
Direct teaching
DIRI React (with or without evaluation) to an intervention (Reactions)
Interventions generated by an earlier comment, either following up the idea or producing a new one; may or not incorporate evaluation
Scaffolding, help, (can be response or reaction)
DIEC
Interventions explaining step by step how to understand something, how to perform some practical task, and attempt to clear up difficulties encountered (especially moretechnical learning); includes metaphors
Sum up the discussion (summing up)
DIRD
Interventions attempting to synthesise ideas expressed in a discussion (as a final summing up to organise and clarify ideas)
DICF Contribute knowledge from different sources (knowledge broadening)
4
Definition
Interventions contributing complementary information from different sources (papers, other comments, URLs, etc.); always a reaction
Analysis of the teaching dimension
Discussion groups are not only spaces for social encounter but also fulfil the important function of being a space of encounter in the learning process, where, in the virtual forums as in face-to-face classes, teachers and students interact, formulate queries, expound ideas, answer questions, etc. This requires a dimension that analyses such processes from an instructional standpoint. Direct teaching. We used this category to distinguish what we denominated ‘movements of the discourse’. To study the movements or pedagogic action of the discourse by the participants in the forum, we used the analysis of the category direct teaching, which we adapted from the model of Community of Inquiry proposed by Anderson et al. (2001). The content of this category is very similar to that in the works of Bellack (1966). Bellack was concerned with analysing the interactions between teachers and students, referring to four different types of pedagogic action: structuration, question, reply and reaction. Each of these movements in the discourse is defined in the category system: x
The movements of structuring are aimed at initiating interaction, raising a new topic. They are the movements that can be used by both students and teachers. Here is an example: “Message no. 178: from José F., Tue 17 Jul, 2001, 23:15. Subject: and the SMS … I’ve been thinking about the pedagogic value of the SMS, and with your permission I’ll say a little on the matter. Pedagogues talk about the programs of direct IRC-type conversation (online chat rooms of a group of users which can be accessed …”
470 x
C. Marcelo and V.H. Perera The movements of question or query are the interventions of the instructor or of the students calling for information and expecting an intervention of a second person; for example: “Subject re: installing AQUAD I have already installed the program without problems, but have not tried it. Has it got the same restrictions as the demo or is it a complete version?”
x
The movements of reply are those produced as a consequence of a query; for example: “Subject re: module 6 Hi everyone. I’ll take advantage of Iván’s questions to give an overall response to three of the four questions he raises. Questions: 1. Must I put the socio-demographic, numerical, and sequential codes etc, etc.? The socio-demographic codes are put just once in the first line of numbered text. 2. Up to where does the work go? I suppose the question is: How many lines of text should we codify? It’s true that we haven’t set a limit. Let’s establish a codification of at least 1000 lines …”
x
The movements of reaction are those regarding modifications or evaluations of earlier interventions, and which clarify, sum up or amplify their content. For example: “Message no. 172: [In response to no. 101] from Nuria Sat 25 Nov, 2000 12:18 Subject: re: habits and values do not travel over computer networks This topic which we have been discussing for some days is what has most concerned me for a couple of years. It is affected by the fact that it belongs to the field of audiovisual communication. My inner struggles on the question of conscious or unconscious transmission of values make me continually rethink my work in the media. And at stake is nothing more and nothing less than the freedom of the individual and what, in one of the papers of topic 2, is called the integral development of the personality of the individual, which appeared as an aspiration of modernity, together with rationality.” (That paper’s very interesting, in any case. I recommend it)
We stress the four former movements because they are the ones that are most repeated, as can be seen in the diagram. We also see that it is the instructors who intervene most in the category Structuration, although the students originate an equal number of acts of initiation. On the other hand, we see that it is the students who raise most questions although it is noteworthy that the number of responses is very similar for instructors and students. This indicates that the students also take on their role as subjects who contribute knowledge and make it available to their course companions (Figure 2).
5
From the analysis of categories to the study of sequences and structures of discourse in the discussion forums
We have mentioned briefly some of the results obtained from the analysis of frequency of appearance for some of the categories of our system analysing instructional interaction in virtual spaces of learning. We have not gone into detail on this analysis for obvious restrictions of space. However, together with the category analysis, we have propounded the study of the different sequences produced in these spaces of communication that could lead to configuring what Bellack denominated as the movements of discourse, something we
Didactic interaction in e-learning
471
have already referred to earlier. Such analysis requires certain considerations due to the specific nature of CMC. Figure 2
Frequency of messages in teaching dimension
A first consideration concerns the asynchronous character of communication in the forum. This asynchrony in communication means that the messages are recorded in the order they are written and sent, not necessarily in the order of the topics of conversation. Thus, we found chains of messages whose content does not respect the continuity of the topic being read. This was the first difficulty we found, and which we solved by arranging the messages by subject line. We were therefore interested in studying the interaction in the forum making sure that the messages were in the order of the topics of conversation being dealt with. A second consideration was the re-conceptualisation of the unit of analysis. If we take the messages as the unit of analysis for the study of the discourse content, our interest is centred on the interaction. Therefore, we adopted a new unit that would give information on this. In the forum, interaction takes place in the set of messages. Thus we agreed on identifying the sequences of messages as the new unit of analysis. The final consideration was that in the codification process all the messages had at least one code belonging to the category direct teaching, so that the discourse was completely structured. Thus, all the movements derived from participation in the forum were recorded. In constructing the following diagrams, we took into account all the possible forms of discourse structuration, respecting the conditions of associations among the codes established for the category system used. In part, we used a series of analyses enabling us to know the most common interactive structures occurring in the forums. However, some observations are in order: x
The routes proposed for the sequences of interaction correspond to a particular way of structuring the discourse, categorised as direct teaching in the system of categories.
472
C. Marcelo and V.H. Perera
x
The intrinsic nature of the system for recording the messages (forum) and the asynchronous nature of the communication mean that the sequences of interventions are retained in a peculiar fashion (as compared with those produced in face-to-face sessions). A student entering the forum reads these sequences, and intervenes in them, in an order that is topic- or chronologically based.
x
The sequences of intervention were extracted from their natural context without being modified.
x
The sequences of interaction represent the patterns of interaction, as they are frequently repeated during the discourse.
x
The diagrams present the patterns of interaction in routes comprising two, three and four levels of intervention in the discourse.
5.1 Sequence 1 Discourse in the forum usually originates from the structures of initiation, presenting the topics related with course programming. These structures result in messages expressing reactions continuing the topics, attempting to amplify or complement the ideas presented, from new sources. Such reactions take different sides in the discourse. While some continue in the chains of new reactions, others end in new topics or raise questions (Figure 3). Figure 3
First sequence in discourse
Sequence 1. First route: Structuration > Reaction > Structuration A student on the course wants to comment about a work he/she has just done on learning environments. This work concerns a test that analyses the style of learning within such environments. He/She believes it to be an interesting tool because it provides the means to improve the weak points of our personality and reinforce learning capacity. In reaction to the comment, an instructor continues with the idea put forward, offering more information about the tool. The instructor announces the name of the test and indicates the aims of the tool. The intervention that follows is that of a student responding to a proposed course activity. Sequence 1a. Second route: Structuration > Reaction > Question Citing one of the papers proposed for an activity of a course module, a student promotes debate on habits and values in computer networks. The topic is followed up by the reaction of another student. This new intervention provides fresh ideas, including an
Didactic interaction in e-learning
473
evaluation. Following up these latter ideas, a third student expresses his/her agreement and reacts by raising several questions. Sequence 1b. Third route: Structuration > Reaction > Reaction A student intervenes with a comment on the compatibility of a learning platform in the Linux environment. This comment is reacted to by an instructor, who not only shows his/her agreement but also provides new information regarding the learning platform. The same student who began the topic reacts, agreeing with the content of the instructor’s participation.
5.1.1 Interpretation of these sequences The start of a topic, opening discussion in the forum, is a source from which possible reactions can spring, which evaluate, complement, amplify or simply continue the ideas expounded. These reactions can be preceded by interventions that: 1
mean a change in the sequence of the thread (Structuration)
2
raise questions provoked by reactions in the thread (Queries)
3
show new reactions agreeing or not with the earlier one (Reaction). In this last case, we find examples where the second reaction is not necessarily from the person who started the discussion.
5.2 Sequence 2 Sometimes, many of the topics being dealt with in the discussion of the forum for the first time lead to queries of different sorts. From then on, we find two possible routes in the discussion: in one, the queries that give rise to several interventions with responses, or those that receive a response that in turn raises a new query; in the other, those queries that lead to reactions intending to evaluate, clarify, synthesise or amplify the idea in question (Figure 4). Figure 4
Second sequence in discourse
474
C. Marcelo and V.H. Perera
Sequence 2a. First route: Structuration > Question > Response > Question An instructor indicates that one of the course modules is already available for its study on the learning platform. The following message is from a student who, concerned about logging on to the module just opened, expresses the doubts he/she has about finishing the activity of the preceding module, and asks several questions about the procedure. As a result, a second instructor offers general replies to each of the questions raised. The sequence finishes with a message from the same student who raised the questions, in which he/she acknowledges the replies given, and uses the opportunity to raise further questions aimed at clarifying those replies he/she has not understood. Sequence 2b. Second route: Structuration > Question > Reaction An instructor alerts the students to the importance of changing the personal passwords for logging on to the learning platform hosting the course, and at the same time reminds them to fill out an initial questionnaire evaluating the aspects of the course. A student intervenes, asking for help on how to change her password. In reaction, an instructor gives a practical explanation of how to learn the technique.
5.2.1 Interpretation of these sequences We should make a first observation regarding the initiation structures of topics and questions. The sequence of structures is usually contained in the same message, as we have shown in the second route. What distinguishes it from the messages whose discourse begins with structures is precisely that the following structures offer new options that these do not. Topic-derived questions can result in specific replies that raise further questions seeking to clarify or go deeper into the first. However, these questions can also be followed by several responses, as after a general question. Another possibility is when the topic-derived question produces a reaction that is a step-by-step explanation of how to understand something or how to perform some practical task, or seeks to clarify problems encountered in more technical learning.
5.3 Sequence 3 In the discussion in the forum, we find sequences of interventions that seem uncommon. Such is the case of sequences that begin with one topic, followed by the presentation of a totally new one. The second topic can then take in interventions with new topics, or reactions to previous ideas or contentions (Figure 5). Sequence 3. Route: Structuration > Structuration > Structuration In this case, we find three interventions of students, each of whom states an opinion regarding the reading of various papers proposed as a course task. This activity promotes discussion in the forum.
Didactic interaction in e-learning Figure 5
475
Third sequence in discourse
5.3.1 Interpretation of this sequence The repeated appearance in the forum of sequences with structures could have various explanations: x
A first can be taken as the moment when the forum becomes a space for gathering different opinions of the students as a response to an activity.
x
Another could be the greetings of students when they enter the forum for the first time, and which often accompany proposals of new topics.
x
A final one could be the coexistence of the topics referring to the course and the topics of leisure in the same sequence. It is clear that such sequences of topic-based lines can result in new structures raising questions or with different reactions.
5.4 Sequence 4 Discussion can also start from queries. When this happens, they are usually followed by the reactions attempting to re-formulate or clarify the question. Nonetheless, such queries usually continue with responses, which in turn provoke new reactions that evaluate or amplify the previous contribution (Figure 6). Figure 6
Fourth sequence in discourse
476
C. Marcelo and V.H. Perera
Sequence 4. First route: Question > Response > Reaction A student intervenes asking for general help to find URLs, bibliography or computer programs enabling his/her to work on material adapted to children with Down’s syndrome. His/Her request gets a response from another student offering a URL of interest on the topic. This second message gets a quick reaction from the student who asked for help, thanking the responder for his/her contribution.
5.4.1 Interpretation of this sequence The questions form part, together with the initiation of topics, of the structures that can create new topics of discussion. Many of the structures codified are the requests for some sort of help or information. In such case, the interventions that follow are usually reactions covering these requests. At the same time, the questions raised in the forum also usually require specific information in response to a specific question. When this happens, the participations that follow this sequence end in some sort of reaction depending on the response sent.
6
Conclusion
Through the analysis of the sequences we can see that the interaction in the virtual environment follows some different patterns in relation with face to face classroom. It is characteristic of face to face teaching that the moves of the discourse begin with a structuring of the teacher followed by the teacher’s questions and later student answer. What we have shown is that although this sequence is also given in the virtual environments, we can find other sequences more students-oriented. The study of the sequences of the discourse allows us to affirm that, in the first place this is a dynamic process that should be analysed along the time. And in second place that this process instead of lineal follows a ramified sequence. So each chain of messages offers multiple possibilities that can be more or less participative depending of the interventions of the tutors or of the students. In this paper we have described the research we have carried out, which is aimed at contributing conceptual and methodological tools to help in understanding better how online teaching and learning works. In conducting this research we have not started from scratch. We have taken advantage of the considerable advances made in earlier decades by the research on the analysis of instructional interaction. However, we have – inevitably – gone further, adapting the traditional principles to the new learning environments. Research on learning in virtual contexts is still in its infancy (Wallace, 2003). Research must be undertaken to give responses and clarify how these processes work and what helps to improve them. Relationships have to be established between teacher– student discourse and the results, both of students’ learning and their level of satisfaction (Gunawardena and Zittle, 1997). At the same time, it is necessary to investigate the nature itself of online teaching and learning: how it is produced, what mechanisms drive it and how to promote and evaluate it. Research is also needed on the constitution, configuration and structure of the groups created in online classes, where there is no
Didactic interaction in e-learning
477
physical contact between the class members – How do students work in virtual groups? What leadership styles are developed?
References Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R. and Archer, W. (2001) ‘Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Vol. 5. Available at: http//www.sloan-c.org/publications/JALN/v5n2/v5n2_anderson.asp Bellack, A. (1966). The language of the classroom, New York, Teacher College Press. Blanchette, J. (2001) Participant Interaction and Discourse Practice in an Asynchronous Learning Environment. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Blanton, W., Moorman, G. and Try, W. (1998) ‘Telecommunications and teacher education: to social constructivist review’, In P. S.I-N. Pearson, A (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 23, pp.235–275). Washington, DC: AERA. Bonk, C. and Cunningham, D. (1998) ‘Searching for learner-centered, constructivism, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools’, In C. Bonk and K. King (Eds), Electronic Collaborators (pp.25–50). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bonk, C. and King, K. (1998) ‘Introduction to electronic collaborators’, In C.Y.K. Bonk and K. King (Eds), Electronic Collaborators. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Davis, B. and Brewer, J. (1997) Electronic Discourse. Linguistic Individuals in Virtual space. New York: SUNY Press. Duffy, T., Dueber, B. and Hawley, C. (1998) ‘Critical thinking in a distributed environment: a pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems’, In C.Y.K. Bonk and K. King (Eds), Electronic Collaborators (pp.51–78). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Garrison, D., Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2000) ‘Critical thinking and computer conferencing: a model and tool to assess cognitive presence’, Available at: http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/cmc/ CogPresPaper_June30_.pdf Gilbert, P. (2002) Assessing the Impact of the Structuredness of Online Discussion Protocols on Meaningful Discourse. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, George Mason University. Gunawardena, C. and Zittle, F. (1997) ‘Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment’, The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 11, pp.8–25. Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C. and Anderson, T. (1997) ‘Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing’, Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol. 17, pp.397–431. Hara, N., Bonk, C. and Angeli, C. (2000) ‘Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course’, Instructional Science, Vol. 28, pp.115–152. Harasim, L.M. (1990) Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment. New York: Praeger. Henri, F. (1992) ‘Computer conferencing and content analysis’, In A.R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing (pp.117–136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Jonassen, D., Collins, A., Campbell, J. and Bannan-Haag, B. (1995) ‘Constructivism and computermediated communication in distance education’, The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 9, pp.7–26. King, K. (1998) ‘Designing 21st-century educational networks: structuring electronic social spaces’, In C. Bonk and K. King (Eds), Electronic Collaborators (pp.365–383). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lally, V. (2001) ‘Analyzing teaching and learning interactions in a networked collaborative learning environment: issues and work in progress’, Retrieved on 21 July 2001, Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educo/documents/00001648.htm
478
C. Marcelo and V.H. Perera
Mann, C. and Stewart, F. (2000) Internet Communication and Qualitative Research. A Handbook for Researching Online. London: Sage. McKenzie, M. and Murphy, D. (2000) ‘“i hope this goes somewhere”: evaluation of an online discussion group’, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 16, pp.239–257. Rourke, L., Anderson, L., Garrison, D. and Archer, W. (2001) ‘Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts’, Int. J. Artificial Intelligence in Education, Vol. 12, pp.8–22. Schrire, S. (2002) The Learning Process, Moderation and Discourse Patterns in Asynchronous Computer Conferencing. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University. Shotsberger, P. (2001) ‘Classifying forms of synchronous dialogue resulting from web-based teacher professional development’, Paper presented at the SITE, Orlando. In proceedings. Van Dijk, T.A. (2000) ‘El discurso como interacción social’, In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), El discurso como interacción social, Vol. Ii (pp.19–66). Barcelona: Gedisa. Van Gorp, M. (1998) ‘Computer-mediated communications in preservice teacher education: Surveying research, identifying problems, and considering needs’, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, Vol. 14, pp.8–14. Wallace, R.M. (2003) ‘Online learning in higher education: a review of research on interactions among teachers and students’, Education, Communication & Information, Vol. 3, pp.241–280. Zhu, E. (1998) ‘Learning and mentoring: electronic discussion in a distance-learning course’, In C. Bonk and K. King (Eds), Electronic Collaborators (pp.233–259). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
