1 / 14

by Heckman and Annabi (2005)

A CONTENT ANALYTIC COMPARISON OF LEARNING PROCESSES IN ONLINE and FACE-TO-FACE CASE STUDY DISCUSSIONS. by Heckman and Annabi (2005). INTRODUCTION. It is commonly espoused that one of the strengths of online education [asynchronous learning networks--ALNs] is its discussion-based learning;

daktari
Download Presentation

by Heckman and Annabi (2005)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A CONTENT ANALYTIC COMPARISON OF LEARNING PROCESSES IN ONLINE and FACE-TO-FACE CASE STUDY DISCUSSIONS by Heckman and Annabi (2005)

  2. INTRODUCTION • It is commonly espoused that one of the strengths of online education [asynchronous learning networks--ALNs] is its discussion-based learning; • We are reminded of increased reflection time, democratic participation, and benefits of writing; • Much research has shown that ALNs can produce learning equivalent to or better than FTF classrooms;

  3. INTRODUCTION • There is little research available that compares FTF and ALN discussions: How are they similar and how are they different from one another? • The study presented here compared case study discussions in both FTF and ALN modes;

  4. METHODS • Subjects: • 120 seniors in a large northeastern university, enrolled in 2 sections [53 and 67 students respectively] of the capstone course for the B.S. in Information Management;

  5. PROCEDURES • Case-based discussion was a normal part of the course; • Each student took part in 2 discussions, one discussion was FTF and the other was conducted asynchronously in a discussion board (WebCT);

  6. PROCEDURES • Each section was randomly divided into 2 equal subgroups; • Dividing into subgroups allowed the researcher to observe 8 individual discussions: 4 in FTF mode and 4 in ALN mode, with 1 week for each discussion; • Having 8 groups also allowed for control over order effects, group composition effects, and effects due to the 2 cases used for discussion;

  7. PROCEDURES • The same instructor facilitated in both the ALN and FTF modes; • Identical starting and transitional questions were used in each mode, and the instructor attempted to keep his part similar in both modes; • The instructor attempted to control for things like calling on people, questions asked, time allocated, care in bringing up points;

  8. PROCEDURES • In-class discussions were recorded and transcribed, and an observer kept detailed notes of the meetings; • Complete texts of ALN discussions were extracted from WebCT logs;

  9. PROCEDURES • Coding: • With a content analytic framework, transcripts were coded for: • Cognitive Process: components of critical thinking (triggering, exploration, integration, & resolution); • Social Process: characteristics of the social interacton, such as cohesiveness; • Teaching Process: design of the learning experience, as well as its delivery and facilitation [either student or teacher behaviors]; • Discourse Process: responses between learners and learners and learners and instructors;

  10. CODING • Sub-Categories: • Affective response • Cohesive response • Interactive response • Rote factual response • Analysis • Speaker • Informal speech • Passive voice

  11. RESULTS SUMMARY • Teacher presence was much greater in FTF discussions; • Virtually all student utterances in FTF were responses to the teacher. In ALN discussions nearly two-thirds of student utterances were responses to other students; • FTF discussions used more informal language and active voice; • Student utterances were longer in ALN, while teacher utterances were shorter;

  12. The major interactive operation in ALN was continuing a thread, while in FTF it was asking a question (usually by the teacher); • There was a greater incidence of direct instruction in the FTF discussion. This was true of confirming understanding (a feedback function), presenting content, and focusing the discussion;

  13. • There was a greater incidence of drawing in participants, especially through cold calling on students, in the FTF discussions; • More than half of the instances of Teaching Process in the ALN discussion were performed by students rather than the teacher; • In the average FTF discussion there were nearly twice as many instances of Cognitive Process as in the average ALN discussion;

  14. • In FTF discussions, the instances of Cognitive Process were predominantly in the lower order exploration category; • In contrast, the ALN discussions contained more high-level Cognitive Process instances, both in absolute and relative terms; • Student-to-student interactions contain a greater proportion of high-level cognitive indicators;

More Related