R2P or not R2P

1. Jim Flowers, Ball State University R2P or not R2P

2. Annette Rose’s initial work on cognitive dialog • Problem-based learning groups in Blackboard for an online graduate course • Technology Assessment: Health & Wellness Impacts of Computer Use on Children • Compared cooperative and collaborative group structures • Cooperative groups had assigned roles within each team, with “specialists” in: • Health & Wellness; Education; Economics; Lead Editor; Web Specialist Rose, M.A. (2004). Comparing productive online dialogue in two group styles: Cooperative and collaborative. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 73-88. (This publication won Dr. Rose the WedemeyerAward for Outstanding Scholar in Distance Education.)

3. Bb group discussions analysis • Function • Cognitive, organizational, metacognitive, social • Cognitive Skill • Elementary clarification, in-depth clarification, inference, judgment, cognitive strategy • Level • Deep, shallow Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In Anthony R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 117-136). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Henri, F., & Rigault, C.R. (1996). Collaborative distance learning and computer conferencing. In T.T. Liao (Ed.) Advanced educational technology: Research issues and future potential (pp. 45-76). Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, 145. New York: Springer-Verlag.

4. Among the Findings… • Cooperative groups had higher percentages of cognitive messages in earlier weeks. • Cognitive dialog was still lower than reported in other studies. • Having roles based on content areas or organizational tasks seemed to limit cognitive discussions. • The instructor tended to oil the squeaky wheel, and post non-cognitive prompts in groups with lower participation.

5. R2P: Apply the findings • Same course, one year later • Technology Assessment: Non-Occupational Hearing Protection • Only cooperative learning groups • Cognitive roles • Cognitive Strategist; Inferencer; Possibility Generator; Summarizer • Jigsaw cooperative learning structure • Instructor oiled the wheel that stopped, and provided cognitive prompts where participation was low. Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

6. Among the Findings… Initial Study Follow-up Study Rose, M.A. & Flowers, J. (2003). Assigning learning roles to promote critical discussions during problem-based learning. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI. Available from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/03_73.pdf

7. R2P: Since that time… • Cooperative groups • Cognitive role assignment • Jigsaw • Cognitive prompts by instructor • Continuing to think about what can be done to influence cognitive dialog

8. Has this happened to you? • The instructor provides directions for engaging in discussions, possibly with criteria or a rubric. • Several students fail to follow those instructions. • The instructor therefore spends quite a bit of time guiding students to communicate in ways specified, rather than dealing with student understanding of the content.

9. A third study on cognitive dialog • 5-week graduate course. In Week 3, each student categorized and counted their own Week 1 messages: • Total number of messages • Social messages • Other off-topic messages • On-topic messages, according to the instructor’s criteria: • Posing a relevant question • Offering unsolicited observation, opinions, advice related to the topic • Brief response to another’s question or statement • Lengthy response to another’s question or statement (Multiple counts per message were possible.) Flowers, J., & Cotton, S. (2007.) Impacts of student categorization of their online discussion contributions. American J. of Distance Education, 21(2), 93-104.

10. Coding • Researchers coded student posts (message=unit) by function, skill, and level, comparing Week 1 & 2 forums to the post-treatment Week 4 forum. • Students were surveyed at the end of the course on the perceived impact of the treatment.

11. We hypothesized increases in • Quantity • Total number of messages posted per forum • Quality of cognitive dialog • Percent cognitive messages • Percent analysis (i.e., in-depth clarification) • Percent inference • Percent complex (i.e., deep level processing)

12. Instead of increases we found: • Total number of messages posted per forum • Decreased from 48.7 to 35.6 per person • Percent cognitive messages • Decreased from 90% to 83% p=.018* • Percent analysis (i.e., in-depth clarification) • Decreased form 18% to 7% p<.001* • Percent inference • Decreased from 10% to 6% p=.049* • Percent complex (i.e., deep level processing) • Decreased from 13% to 8% p=.007*

13. Among results from the survey: • Oddly, several participants reported in the survey that the treatment caused them to increase the quantity and quality of their cognitive dialog. Analysis by participant showed that this report was not corroborated by coded results.

14. R2~P • Don’t use this technique in a five week course and expect it to increase the quantity and quality of cognitive dialog. • It could be that this sensitizes students to the notion that what they write will be scrutinized, so they might react by clamming up. • (Don’t use surveys of opinions to provide any information other than opinions.)

15. Not that surveys are useless: • Flowers, J. (1995). Overcoming the barriers: Technology education as a career choice for women. J. of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 2(1&2), 17-32. • Flowers, J. (2001). Online learning needs in technology education. J. of Technology Education, 13(1), 17-30. • Flowers, J., & Baltzer, H. (2006). Hiring technical education faculty: Vacancies, criteria, and attitudes toward online doctoral degrees. J. of Industrial Teacher Education, 43(3), 29-44. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v43n3/pdf/flowers.pdf • Flowers, J., & Baltzer, H. (2006). Perceived demand for online and hybrid doctoral programs in technical education. J. of Industrial Teacher Education, 43(4), 39-56. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v43n4/pdf/flowers.pdf • Baltzer, H., Lazaros, E., & Flowers, J., (2007). Review of doctoral programs in technical education. J. of Industrial Teacher Education, 44(2), 37-59. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v44n2/pdf/baltzer.pdf • Pearsall, C., Hodson Carlton, K., & Flowers, J. (2012). Barriers & strategies towards the implementation of a full-time faculty-at-a-distance nurse educator. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(6), 399-405. • Flowers, J. & Rose, M. A. (2014). Mathematics in technology & engineering education: Judgments of grade-level appropriateness. Journal of Technology Education, 25(2), 18-34. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v25n2/pdf/flowers.pdf

16. R maybe 2 P • “You can’t use the sandwich strategy of providing a student: praise, criticism, praise; research has proven it doesn’t work.” • Really? • “Students should always be informed of objectives prior to a lesson.” • Always?

17. (~R)2P • “The software requires that your programs have four decision points.” • “We’re using a software system where all evaluation is by rubrics, and all rubrics must have exactly four levels.” • “The state legislators are pressuring us to graduate students in four years.” • “Instructors may not contact students prior to the first day of classes.”

18. Jim Flowers, Ball State University R2P or not R2P