Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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]