Download Communication or interaction

Catching communication on the net
ECER2002
Catching communication on the net
Tor Söderström, Ethel Dahlgren, David Hamilton and Agneta Hult
Umeå university
Department of Education
[email protected]
S-901 87 Umeå
Sweden
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon,
11-14 September 2002
Abstract: This paper has been prepared at the half-way stage of a three-year research
project.1 It draws attention to the characteristics of virtual education and communication,
and specifically to the analytical methods and tools that have been used in previous
research. First the paper discusses the main terms communication and interaction and how
the terms have been used in research on computer conferences; secondly, it identifies and
discusses research measures that have been of interest in quantitative and qualitative
approaches; and thirdly, it offers inputs for future research on computer conferences and
online learning. Overall, the paper contributes to debates about online communication and
educational computer conferences.
Computer mediated communication
The ability to communicate, regardless of time and space, is one of the advantages with
information and communication technology (ICT) in education. ICT makes it possible to
connect humans to each other and create interplay between humans located at different places,
regions and countries. The importance of making communication possible in educational
settings relies on the assumptions that communication is a core factor for learning. 2 Computer
mediated communication via the internet is not the same as face to face communication. The
internet is an environment which transform the way people relate to each other. Stone use the
term bandwidth to explain differences between virtual and face-to-face communication. In
real life the bandwidth is high since people can use speech, gestures etc. when they are
communicating. Virtual communication does not have the same bandwidth as real life
communication and is therefore often restricted to text lines on the computer screen.3
Communication on the net depends partly on what the software or communication
platform provide. But what people talk about and how active the communication is also
depends on whether the virtual environment is open or closed, if it is for educational purposes
or for pleasure, etc.4 There are several issues to consider when net communication research is
in focus. In this paper we will examine how the terms communication and interaction have
1
The project investigates the pedagogical practises associated with the use of forum (or conferencing) software
in adult education. The project is supported by LearnIT, which is a Swedish research program.
2
Säljö, 2001
3
Stone, 1997.
4
Research shows that activity and communication in net-based learning environments is low. This means that a
positive climate for learning is reduced, as interaction is supposed to be one of the enabling factors for learning.
Haythornthwaite et al 2000 showed that only a minority of students was engaged and active and therefore
developed patterns for communicative learning in electronic discussion forums. Other studies (Tapscott, 1998;
Turkle, 1997) show that when there is no educational purpose as it is in public chat rooms, mud etc. there are a
lot of people engaged in all kinds of discussions.
1
Tor Söderström et al
Umea University
Department of Education
[email protected]
Catching communication on the net
ECER2002
been managed in previous research and how research on asynchronous net communication
has been done.
2
Tor Söderström et al
Umea University
Department of Education
[email protected]
Catching communication on the net
ECER2002
Communication or interaction
Communication and interaction are two terms circulating around IT and education. They often
mean the same thing; but sometimes they do not. From previous research, as we will show
later, we can conclude that there is no established way for how these terms should be
understood or used.
Definitions of communication show that the term means “contact between people, transfer
of information etc.”5 The definition also set language as a core factor for the term
communication.
The term interaction does not have the same “touch” as communication and is a wider
concept than communication.
The gathering places and sites of experience in electronic culture are increasingly situated in what amounts to
nonspace and in which humans not only interact with human agents but also with the semiautonomous agency of
machines.6
The term interaction does not involve language to the same extent as the term communication.
When we as humans interplay with others we interact. Interaction imply ”interplay, a process
where groups or individuals by their actions have mutual influence on each other via
language, gestures and symbols etc.”7 In the Swedish Academiy’s word-listy the term
interaction means interplay and cooperation with others.8
The term interaction seems, in previous research, to be more widely used than the term
communication. Interaction can be understood in several ways, from human–information
interaction as well as human–human interaction, the focus of this paper. Previous studies have
not had a unitary view of the term interaction. Dysthe gives, for example, different
perspectives on interaction from simple message exchange to message exchange with
engagement and activity.9
The qualitative aspect of interaction highlighted by Dysthe is also something we can see
in other studies. Häkkinen and Järvelas suggest that high qualitative interaction is about
mutual exchange where the ability to take the perspective of the other is emphasized. 10
Nyberg follows the same line and indicates that merely collecting information from internet
cannot be real interaction since it has to activate and engage people to be classified as real. 11
Henri has a clearer definition of interaction and means that interaction in virtual spaces should
be considered as a discussion thread, A – B – A – B.12 To us interaction seems in, ICT studies,
to be a concept used both for responses as well as reciprocal and active communication.
Definitions of interaction in real life emphasize simultaneity, a mutual and simultaneous
activity from participants.13 At first sight such definitions can be comprehended as too
narrow, which they are, since they do not include asynchronous communication. Nevertheless
5
Svenska Akademiens ordlista (SAOL), 1998.
Margaret Morse, 1998, s 17.
7
Nationalencyklopedin, 1990.
8
SAOL, 1998.
9
Dysthe, 1999, exemplifies that by mentioning Henri´s study from 1995. She says that only 22 percent of the
messages were interactive, that they were responses of something. In her article (1999) she gives no clear
answers for how to look the term interaction. In one meaning she says that the interaction is the interplay, the
exchange irrespective of the content and engagement. But she also means that messages were interactive because
they engaged to dialogue where thoughts and ideas actively circulated among the participants.
10
Häkkinen & Järvela, 1999.
11
Nyberg, Strandvall red. (2000).
12
Henri in Hara, Bonk & Angeli, 2000.
13
Lippman in Stone, 1997.
6
3
Tor Söderström et al
Umea University
Department of Education
[email protected]
Catching communication on the net
ECER2002
they can highlight things that are not obvious in asynchronous environments.14 Goffman´s
view of interaction (symbolic interactionism) is an example of that. Goffman suggests that the
direct interaction can be defined as individuals´ mutual influence on other individuals´ actions
and behaviour when they are physical present for each other.15 In such a context expressive
signs, symbols etc., becomes important parts of the interaction with others. Such interaction
we can also see online in public forums. Men can become women on the net to get more
attention and women can become men to be taken more seriously. Gender represents
something that others should interact with.16 The question is what kind of symbols exists in
online education?
When do we communicate and when do we interact? The terms are not easy to define and
understand. Researchers use the terms in different ways and there is no established
understanding. How the terms will be understood has consequences for what kind of data to
focus on. A theoretical frame will help to catch the communication on the net. Despite no
clear way of understanding interaction, previous research shows that interaction, which
engages and activates is the desirable interaction in educational settings. Previous research
shows that the term interaction can be divided into different levels of interaction depending on
the degree of activity and engagement. If we translate this to online learning there is value in
making clear what interaction is and classifying the interaction in a course according to how
much it engages and activates people. The terms communication and interaction flow together
as shown by the fact that in order to classify the interaction qualitatively you have to study the
communication. The term communication is often, in previous studies, the same as interaction
but this paper suggests that communication is more “what people say and talk about” in
computer conferences.17 This is because the term communication focuses on the speech and
the language and the term interaction is better for describing interaction patterns, the interplay
between people on the net. The interplay consists of questions, comments, compliments etc.,
which may give rise to engagement as well as the fact that some messages give no obvious
responses, they are not answered but they are read.18
Net communication research
In cyberspace, is there a ”there” there?19
Previous studies have had different perspectives and focus, from cultural norms to course
related aspects. But both quantitative and qualitative methods have been used to catch
communication on the net.20 The quantitative approach has aimed at identifying interaction
patterns and the qualitative approach has, in our view, focused on communication, what
people say and what they talk about.
14
Understandings of interaction like this might be better (probably more obvious) in online education based on
synchronous communication like desktop-video-conferencing. But they are also important in asynchronous
environments in purpose to get better knowledge about online learning.
15
Goffman, 1995.
16
O´Brien, 1999.
17
Hara, Bonk & Angeli, 2000, said in their study that they not were focusing the communication instead they
analysed the content. In our project we will both classify communication as well as the content of the
communication.
18
If we consider Goffmans definition we can also include silence in the term interaction because it is also a
response. There are a silent majority observing the active ones.
19
Steve Jones, s 18. Jones asks himself if it emerges any culture in cyberspace. What is the consequenses of the
fact that people come and go all the time. Research from other fields shows that even if people come and go all
the time culture emerges (Söderström, 1999).
20
See Sudweeks & Simoff, 1999, Kear, 2001 and Hara, Bonk & Angeli, 2000.
4
Tor Söderström et al
Umea University
Department of Education
[email protected]
Catching communication on the net
ECER2002
Quantitative approach
Sudweeks and Simoff point out that chains of messages constructed by the participants and
how the messages are related to each other in direct and indirect meaning are important data
for describing the interaction in a course.21 Catching the interaction has been done with
quantitative measurements. Such research has focused on measures such as the total number
of messages, the number of isolated messages, threaded messages etc. in order to catch
interaction patterns, sometimes followed up with a qualitative analysis of the content. Other
measurements have focused on the messages´ average length, and interaction patterns and
during the whole course period.22 Even if there are differences between studies in their focus
there are also great similarities. Previous research can be classified as relatively homogenous.
Quite the same aspects have been studied even if the terms and concepts vary between
different kinds of studies. Discussion thread have been followed up by studying if there are
direct answers or not. The terms explicit and implicit interaction, as well as independent
messages, as well as direct or indirect interaction and isolated messages have been used for
examining the same thing.23 If we sum up the quantitative methodology in these studies, they
have focused on the following:





Total amount of messages
The amount of isolated messages. Not included in a thread
Threaded messages. The number of messages in each thread
Direct or indirect response. If individuals direct answered a message or if a message
refer to another
Missed thread. If a message is not placed in the thread where it is supposed to be
placed.
The interaction in an asynchronous environment can also be studied from different levels.
Kear separates content and user interface level.24 Different kind of discussion forum have
different design and structure and differences in user interface influence the way students
work in a discussion forum. A well designed forum can help students to organise their
messages and link them to where they belong.25
This means that researchers also have to consider the nature of the discussion forum and
be aware of what consequences it may have. The design and user interface level makes it
possible to consider how technological aspects relate to the actual communication in a
course.26 Other researchers have a different opinion and indicate that an information and
communication technology tool either supports or limits deeper levels of interaction.27
However our experiences of information and communication technology in education shows
that technical and design factors can support communication and that they should be
considered when doing net research.28
21
Sudweeks & Simoff, 1999, talks about different kinds of reference meausers It means how the messages
relates to each others, how many that were found before the actual one, how many that pointed at it and how
many that were in a sequence after the actual one.
22
Hara, Bonk & Angeli, 2000.
23
See Hara, Bonk & Angeli, 2000 and Kear,2001.
24
Kear means by system level the user-interface and with the content level the text and discussions.
25
Kear, 2001.
26
Dahlgren, Hult & Olofsson, 2001.
27
Häkkinen & Järvela, 1999.
28
See Dahlgren, 1999 and Söderström, En utvärdering av Roxy netbased learning, (Luleå, 2000).
5
Tor Söderström et al
Umea University
Department of Education
[email protected]
Catching communication on the net
ECER2002
Qualitative approach
Virtual environments create virtual cultures. Some researchers mean that a sort of netculture
emerges and messages that shape an ongoing discussion are important for catching cultural
norms.29 Central for these net cultural studies has been the interest for meaning and how
meaning is created while variations between the studies can be related to differences in their
research approaches. The search for meaning has been investigated with a qualitative
approach.
In the arena of cybertalk, meaning is given in the responses one speaker-writer makes to another.30
Studies in the field have for example focused on the network of relations that emerge. Who is
central and who is isolated, and network roles have been a question of interest. 31 Power and
control are other aspects which other researchers have been interested in.32 Although Denzin
points out that there is someone who controls the interaction and communication, the
important thing to consider is how control is used. The empirical way to catch questions about
power and control is to study what is happening and what is said and how messages are direct
or indirect related to each other from a theoretical framework. Firstly, according to Denzin,
the focus is on the form, for example compliments, and secondly the content and how it
disguises questions about power, personality, race, gender, class etc.
In the qualitative approach in course-related net studies meaning and the creation of
meaning have also been in focus when the content, what people say and talk about, has been
investigated. Different kind of analytical models have been used, but the question is often the
same. What is the quality of the virtual communication and how is it related to learning?
Häkkinen och Järvela have for example analysed how content in discussion forums disguised
the students´ perspectives.33 They used a theoretical frame with its base in cognitive
developmental theory. The messages were first analysed according to how they were related
to different levels, where the highest level was about reciprocal discussion with theoretical
argumentation and where the lowest level was short separate comments and opinions based on
experience.
Hara, Bonk och Angeli used Henri´s model where the content is analysed from social
aspects, cognitive abilities, deep and surface orientation and metacognitive abilities.34 Dysthe
developed a model with its base in theories about dialogism. Messages were classified from if
they were engaging to dialogue (reciprocal and active engagement with thoughts and ideas
from the involved) or if they were univocal (distribution of information). Dysthe shows in her
study that the communication in a web-based course has several functions since it
comprehends both univocal (one-way information) and dialogical messages. Sudweeks och
Simoff analysed computer conferences from a model that firstly examined which dimensions
the conferences had. If messages were debating, social, task oriented etc.35 Secondly the
messages were categorised according to what they contained and how the conversations
changed over time. As with the quantitative approach, we find similarities in how the
qualitatively approach has been used in research. A theoretical framework has served as a
29
Sudweeks & Simoff, 1999.
Denzin, 1999, s 110.
31
Garton et al, 1999.
32
Denzin, 1999.
33
Häkkinen & Järvela, 1999. They mean that all successful communication include perspective taking and
reciprocal understanding among the participants. They applied Selman´s socio-cognitive theory on perspective
taking in their analyses of the net discussions.
34
Hara, Bonk & Angeli, 2000.
35
Sudweeks och Simoff, 1999.
30
6
Tor Söderström et al
Umea University
Department of Education
[email protected]
Catching communication on the net
ECER2002
basis for the classification of the communication; and variations between studies depends
upon what kind of framework has been used.
How to catch communication on the net?
To sum up, in order to catch communication on the net in online education researchers have to
consider both quantitative and qualitative issues. This paper suggests that a fruitful way for
research on virtual communication is first to make clear whether communication or
interaction is in focus. Secondly, in the quantitative measurements, consider both the user
interface level and the content level, in order to catch the interaction patterns. The
consideration of both these levels makes it possible to catch how design and technological
aspects relate to the discussions or, in Wenger’s view, how practise constitute a response to
design.36
What you can do and what kind of data you can get when you study education online
depends largely on what kind of information you can get from the virtual environment.
Virtual environments differ in functionality and also in how every action is logged. This
means that you can get more information from a course based on Firstclass than from a course
based on a simple web forum. In the qualitative approach, the term communication should be
used since the issue is what people say and communicate about. A mix of both quantitative
and qualitative methods may illuminate how the interaction patterns relate to the
communication and vice versa. The quality of the communication and how it relates to
learning is determined by what perspectives and assumptions the research has. In this paper
we have shown that there has been variations between studies in their interpretations of the
communication and the content. We will never get rid of the variations since learning is not an
easy thing to understand.
There are many different kinds of learning theory. Each emphasizes different aspects of learning, and each is
therefore useful for different purposes. To some extent these differences in emphasis reflect a deliberate focus on
a slice of the multidimensional problem of learning, and to some extent they reflect more fundamental
differences in assumptions about the nature of knowledge, knowing and knowers, and consequently about what
matters in learning.37
In our ongoing project we have used a model, which consider both the user-interface level
suggested by Kear and a message level where we combine interaction markers with
classification of the communication. Each conference has been studied from the user-interface
level and will be compared with the message level in order to get clues about how well the
user-interface supports communication. Every message is coded both quantitatively in form of
gender, day, time of day, month, year, readership etc. (which makes it possible to track
interaction patterns), as well as qualitatively. We use Dysthe’s classification of messages as
univocal or dialogical as well as content analysis since one of the main things in the project is
to investigate what discussions take place and what is its content, and if a written learning
culture emerge. The data and analysis of the interaction and communication will be followed
up later with questionnairies to the participants in the courses.
36
37
Wenger, 1998, s 233.
Wenger, 1998, s 3-4.
7
Tor Söderström et al
Umea University
Department of Education
[email protected]
Catching communication on the net
ECER2002
Future research
The paper has suggested some general questions to consider when doing research on
asynchronous net communication. As we mentioned earlier every communication platform
cannot deliver the same type of data. The paper may offer inspiration for other researchers as
a starting point for doing internet research but has to be connected to theoretical assumptions.
One important thing to mention is that there have not been so many comparisons between the
user interface and the actual communication. Our model involves the user interface level,
which makes it possible to better discuss how design and technology relate to questions about
learning and communication.
8
Tor Söderström et al
Umea University
Department of Education
[email protected]
Catching communication on the net
ECER2002
References
Dahlgren, E., Hult,A., & Olofsson, A.(2001). Folkbildning på distans – en utvärdering?.
Umeå universitet: Pedagogiska institutionen
Dahlgren, E (Red.).(1999). Fem år med distanskurs i pedagogik och IT. Umeå
Universitet, Pedagogiska institutionen, Pedagogiska rapporter, nr 56.
Denzin, N.K.(1999). Cybertalk end the method of instances. In S Jones (Ed.)., Doing
internet research. Critical Issues and Methods for Examing the Net. London: Sage
Publications.
Dysthe, O.(1999). The Multivoiced Classroom. Implications of Bakhtin, Rommetveit and
Lothman´s Theoroes of Dialouge. Paper presented at the Earli Gothenborg 24-28/8-1999.
Garton, L., Haythorntwhaite, C.,& Wellman, B(1999). Studying On-line Social networks.
In S Jones (Ed.)., Doing internet research. Critical Issues and Methods for Examing the Net.
London: Sage Publications.
Goffman, E.(1995). Jaget och maskerna. Kristianstad: Rabén Prisma.
Hara, N., Bonk, C.J., & Angeli, C.(2000). Content analysis of online discussions in an
applied educational psychology course. Instructional science 28: 115-152.
Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community
Development Among Distance Learners: Temporal and Technological Dimensions. Journal
of Computer Mediated Communication, vol 6, 1.
Häkkinen, P., & Järvela, S.(1999). Case–based conferencing on the web: reciprocal
understanding and perspective taking in communication. Paper presented at the Earli
conference Gothenborg 24-28/8-1999.
Jones, S.(1999).Studying the net: Intricacies and Issues. In S Jones (Ed.)., Doing internet
research. Critical Issues and Methods for Examing the Net. London: Sage Publications.
Kear, K.(2001). Following the thread in computers conferences. Computers and
Education 37.
Morse, M. (1998). Virtualities. Television, media, art and cyberculture. Bloomington:
Indiana university Press.
Nationalencyklopedin, 1990, fjärde bandet. Bra böcker.
Nyberg, R. (2000) E-lärande – e-learning. I R. Nyberg & T. Strandvall (Red.), Utbilda
via internet. Handbok i IT-pedagogik. Vasa: E-LearnIT.
O´brien, J.(1999). “Writing in the body. Gender (re)production in online interaction”. In
A. Smith & P Kollock (Eds.)., Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge
Stone, R.S. (1997). Eros vs. technos. Stockholm: Nordstedts
Sudweeks, F., & Simoff, J.S.(1999). Complementary Explorative Data Analysis. The
Reconcilation of Quantitative and Qualitative Principles. In S Jones (Ed.)., Doing internet
research. Critical Issues and Methods for Examing the Net. London: Sage Publications.
Svenska Akademiens ordlista (SAOL), 1998. Tolfte upplagan, första tryckningen.
Stockholm: Nordstedts.
Säljö, R.(2001). Lärande i praktiken: Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. Stockholm:
Prisma.2001
Söderström, T (1998) Gymkulturens logik. Om samverkan mellan kropp, gym och
samhälle. (The Logic of Gym Culture: On the interplay between the body, gyms and society).
Umeå: Umeå universitet: Pedagogiska institutionen.
Söderström, T. (2000). Roxy – en utvärdering av nätbaserat lärande (sv/e). Delrapport i
projektet Roxy, EU IST-programmet.
Tapscott, D.(1998). Growing up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
9
Tor Söderström et al
Umea University
Department of Education
[email protected]
Catching communication on the net
ECER2002
Turkle, S.(1997). Leva online. Stockholm: Nordstedts
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity.
Cambridge University Press
10
Tor Söderström et al
Umea University
Department of Education
[email protected]