Categories: Technology, Theory & Rhetoric
Summary:
The results of a study of over 3000 students in online and hybrid courses from 42 higher education institutions found a positive relationship between element of the Communities of Inquiry framework and learning presence. The author's definition of learning presence includes self-efficacy and "other cognitive, behavioral, and motivational constructs."
The authors suggested a revised Community of Inquiry Model (see below) in which learner presence is added as an influening factor in online learning communities.
Citation-worthy:
"The CoI Framework focuses on the intentional development of an online learning community with an emphasis on the processes of instructional conversations that are likely to lead to epistemic engagement. The model articulates the behaviors and processes required to nurture knowledge construction through the cultivation of various forms of “presence”, among which are teaching-, social-, and cognitive presence (Garrison et al., 2001). The model outlines conceptual elements essential to successful knowledge construction in collaborative online environments. The framework theorizes online knowledge building as a result of collaborative work among active participants in
learning communities characterized by instructional orchestration appropriate to the online environments (teaching presence) and a supportive collegial online setting (social presence). The teaching presence construct outlines task sets such as organization, design, discourse facilitation, and direct instruction (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001) and articulates the specific behaviors likely to result in a productive community of inquiry (e.g., Shea, Li, Swan, & Pickett, 2005). Social presence highlights online discourse that promotes positive affect, interaction, and cohesion (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 1999) that support a functional collaborative environment. The model also references cognitive presence, a multivariate measure of significant learning that results from the cyclical process of practical inquiry within such a community of learners. The specific form of interaction within the cognitive presence construct thus reflects a pragmatic view of learning (Dewey, 1933; Lipmann, 2003; Pierce, 1955) However the model as a whole can be seen to articulate the “epistemic” or knowledge construction features of Larreamendy-Joerns and Leinhardt’s model with teaching presence serving the overarching instructional function and social presence supporting productive and participatory 'engagement' (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010, p. 1722).
"In brief, self-efficacy can be viewed as a subjective judgment of one’s level of competence in executing certain behaviors or achieving certain outcomes in the future. Self-efficacy has been identified as the best predictor of college GPA and among the best predictors of college persistence through meta-analytic research (Robbins et al., 2004). Further, commenting on the state of the art in self-regulated learning research Winne suggested that self-regulation is contingent on positive self-efficacy beliefs, arguing that 'learners must subscribe to a system of epistemological and motivational beliefs that classifies failure as an occasion to be informed, a condition that is controllable, and a stimulus to spend effort to achieve better' (Winne, 2005). This contrast of failure attribution as trait (e.g., 'I’m just not good at math') versus failure as occasion to be informed ('I can control, adapt, and learn from this') is a classic view of maladaptive and adaptive self-efficacy beliefs" (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010, p. 1723).
"A strong correlation exists between constructs within the CoI framework and self-efficacy. As we conjectured, teaching presence and social presence are significantly correlated with student self-efficacy. While teaching presence and social presence are important factors in their own right, the extent to which students believe that they achieve significant learning and the effort they expend depends partly on their sense of efficacy.We further suggest that self-efficacy is just one component of the larger construct of online learner self-regulation (learning presence) and that these constructs contribute to our understanding of successful online learning" (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010, p. 1727).
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and higher education, 10(1), 15-25.
Categories: Communication Design, Technology, Theory & Rhetoric
Summary:
Woo and Reeves aimed to elevate and encourage the use of social constructivism learning theory. Their well-researched, excellent article reviews the various theories used on distance education, the definition of distance education, and how these theories and definitions impact and alter the beliefs and actions of practitioners and researchers. In their own words, they "recommend re-conceptualizing online interaction in terms of meaningful learning based on social constructivism learning theory" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 23).
Citation-worthy:
"Interaction is an essential ingredient in any learning process. However, every interaction does not lead to increased learning. When interaction has a direct influence on learners' intellectual growth, we can say the interaction is meaningful. The precise meaning of meaningful interaction is strongly related to the learning theories underlying the development of particular learning environments" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 15).
"One of the key components of good pedagogy, regardless of whether technology is involved, is interaction. Interaction is an essential ingredient of any learning environment (face-to-face classroom-based, synchronous/asynchronous online education, or blended models)" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 16).
On the definition of online education:
"The nature of interaction in various forms of learning environments has been defined in a variety of ways, based upon the participants' level of involvement in a specific learning opportunity such as a university course or a corporate training program and the objects of interaction such as other participants or content materials. The nature of interaction is also dependent upon the contexts in which interaction occurs, in a face-to-face situation or at a distance. Moore's (1989) classic definition of interaction within distance education is based upon a communication-based framework, defining the sender and receiver of three types of interaction: learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner–learner. Also within the context of distance education, Wagner (1994) defined interaction as “the reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions” (p.8). Such interactions are said to occur when these two objects and events reciprocally influence each other. Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) insisted that these and other past discussions of interaction overlooked the fact that all interaction is mediated via a medium in technology-based learning situations. On the basis of their research, Hillman et al. added a fourth kind of interaction, learner-interface interaction to Moore's three types of interaction. More controversially, Sutton (2001) defined a fifth type of interaction, vicarious interaction, which “takes place when a student actively observes and processes both sides of a direct interaction between two other students or between another student and the instructor” (p. 227). Whether such “self-talking” or internal discourse interaction should be categorized with other forms of more directly observable interaction is debatable. Northrup (2001) proposed five interaction purposes: to interact with content, to collaborate, to converse, to help monitor and regulate learning (intrapersonal interaction), and to support performance. Taking into account the previous definitions, Muirhead and Juwah (2004) described interaction as “a dialogue or discourse or event between two or more participants and objects which occurs synchronously and/or asynchronously mediated by response or feedback and interfaced by technology” (p.13). According to them, interaction serves a wide range of functions in the learning process: promoting active learning, enabling effective facilitation, allowing learner input in the learning process, enabling the development of higher order knowledge and abilities, and enhancing the quality and standards of the learning experiences" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 16).
"Depending on how learning is defined, the image of meaningful interaction is changed (Deubel, 2003; Hannafin, 1989; Vrasidas, 2000). That is, the meaning of meaningful interaction is strongly related to the learning theories underlying the development of particular learning environments. For example, in the behaviorist learning theory called operant conditioning (Skinner, 1954); learning is defined as a change in observable behavior" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 16).
"Since the 1990's, constructivism has exerted a strong influence on education in general and the Instructional Technology field in particular. Although there are many variants of constructivist learning theory (Fosnot, 1996), they share a perspective that learning is defined as meaning making. In other words, according to constructivists, learning requires the personal interpretation of phenomenon such as the construction of a mental model representing complex phenomenon. Therefore, when interactions in a learning environment are designed to enhance meaning making, then those interactions are meaningful within the principles of the constructivist learning theory and within context of interactive learning environments that have been designed according to the theory of constructivism (Gergen, 1999).
"Constructivism has provided different forms of theoretical bases for effective online learning environments as well as for face-to-face classroom learning environments (Jonassen, 1999; Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995). Constructivism is a theory about knowledge and learning. It describes both what 'knowing' is and how one 'comes to know.' (Fosnot, 2005, p. ix). Constructivism rests on the assumption that knowledge is constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experiences (Driscoll, 2000). Knowledge is a function of how the individual creates meaning from his or her experiences (Jonassen et al., 1995). That is, knowledge does not consist of objective truths to be transmitted via media, but formative, developmental, and constructed explanations by humans engaged in meaning-making process (Driscoll, 2000; Fosnot, 1996, 2005; Jonassen et al., 1995; Vrasidas, 2000). Clearly, learning from the constructivist perspective is a human meaning-making venture (Driscoll, 2000; Fosnot, 1996, 2005; Gergen, 1999; Jonassen et al., 1995; Vrasidas, 2000)" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 18).
"Constructivism was greatly influenced by the later work of Jean Piaget and the socio-historical work of Lev Vygotsky (Fosnot, 1996; Gergen, 1999). Piaget believed that in a cognitive sense, the human is also a developing organism just like in a physical and biological sense" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 18).
"Vygotsky, on the other hand, was more focused on the effects of social interaction, language, and culture on learning (Fosnot & Perry, 2005; Jonassen et al., 1995; Vrasidas, 2000). Vygotsky emphasized dialogue. He argued that all cognitive functions originate in social interactions and that learning is not simply the assimilation and accommodation of new knowledge by learners; it is the process by which learners are integrated into a knowledge community (Fosnot & Perry, 2005; Jonassen, 1999; Jonassen et al., 1995; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vrasidas, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky was interested ‘not only in the role of inner speech on the learning of concepts but also on the role of the adult and the learners’ peers as they conversed, questioned, explained, and negotiated meaning’ (Fosnot, 1996, p, 20). In his perspective, meaning making is the process of sharing various perspectives and experiences in communities of practice (Fosnot, 1996; Fosnot & Perry, 2005; Jonassen et al., 1995; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vrasidas, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). Therefore, learning is derived from rich conversation with other people who have similar or different perspectives based on their own life experiences (Jonassen, 1999; Jonassen et al., 1995). We call this theory social constructivism" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 18).
"Authentic tasks have become the center of attention for some researchers focused on employing social constructivist as a theoretical foundation for Web-based learning (Herrington, Reeves, Oliver, & Woo, 2004; Lourdusamy, Khine, & Sipusic, 2002). Using authentic tasks is derived from the social constructivist principle of locating learning in realistic contexts (Stage et al., 1998). The use of authentic tasks is also advocated to foster learning transfer in the belief that the collaboration among students helps them learn not only the concepts under discussion but also how these concepts are used in the workplace or in life (Jaworski, 1994). To accomplish an authentic task, students must interact through sharing what they are thinking, relating their ideas to past experiences, collaborating with their peers, actively constructing their own meaning, and incorporating the diverse perspectives of others (Barr & Tagg, 1995)" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 20).
"Among these efforts, the most representative and comprehensive one may be the one made by Reeves, Herrington, and Oliver (2002) to identify guidelines for educational applications of authentic activities within online learning environments. They identified the following ten main characteristics of authentic activities:
1. Authentic activities have real-world relevance.
2. Authentic activities are ill-defined, requiring students to define the tasks and sub-tasks needed to complete the activity.
3. Authentic activities comprise complex tasks to be investigated by students over a sustained period of time.
4. Authentic activities provide the opportunity for students to examine the task from different perspectives, using a variety of resources.
5. Authentic activities provide the opportunity to collaborate.
6. Authentic activities provide the opportunity to reflect.
7. Authentic activities can be integrated and applied across different subject areas and lead beyond domain-specific outcomes.
8. Authentic activities are seamlessly integrated with assessment.
9. Authentic activities create polished products valuable in their own right rather than as preparation for something else.
10. Authentic activities allow competing solutions and diversity of outcomes" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 21).
"How can we really know whether interaction has affected learning through the process of intersubjectivity, especially in Web-based learning environments? Does the use of authentic tasks guarantee meaningful interaction? Certainly not. ... Therefore, to increase meaningful interaction and to design and apply better interaction activities in Web-based learning environments, the interaction processes need to be analyzed and understood in terms of learning" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 22).
"Meaningful interaction should include responding, negotiating internally and socially, arguing against points, adding to evolving ideas, and offering alternative perspectives with one another while solving some authentic tasks (Jonassen et al., 1995; Lapadat, 2002; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vrasidas, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978)" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 23).
Summary:
Woo and Reeves aimed to elevate and encourage the use of social constructivism learning theory. Their well-researched, excellent article reviews the various theories used on distance education, the definition of distance education, and how these theories and definitions impact and alter the beliefs and actions of practitioners and researchers. In their own words, they "recommend re-conceptualizing online interaction in terms of meaningful learning based on social constructivism learning theory" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 23).
Citation-worthy:
"Interaction is an essential ingredient in any learning process. However, every interaction does not lead to increased learning. When interaction has a direct influence on learners' intellectual growth, we can say the interaction is meaningful. The precise meaning of meaningful interaction is strongly related to the learning theories underlying the development of particular learning environments" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 15).
"One of the key components of good pedagogy, regardless of whether technology is involved, is interaction. Interaction is an essential ingredient of any learning environment (face-to-face classroom-based, synchronous/asynchronous online education, or blended models)" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 16).
On the definition of online education:
"The nature of interaction in various forms of learning environments has been defined in a variety of ways, based upon the participants' level of involvement in a specific learning opportunity such as a university course or a corporate training program and the objects of interaction such as other participants or content materials. The nature of interaction is also dependent upon the contexts in which interaction occurs, in a face-to-face situation or at a distance. Moore's (1989) classic definition of interaction within distance education is based upon a communication-based framework, defining the sender and receiver of three types of interaction: learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner–learner. Also within the context of distance education, Wagner (1994) defined interaction as “the reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions” (p.8). Such interactions are said to occur when these two objects and events reciprocally influence each other. Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) insisted that these and other past discussions of interaction overlooked the fact that all interaction is mediated via a medium in technology-based learning situations. On the basis of their research, Hillman et al. added a fourth kind of interaction, learner-interface interaction to Moore's three types of interaction. More controversially, Sutton (2001) defined a fifth type of interaction, vicarious interaction, which “takes place when a student actively observes and processes both sides of a direct interaction between two other students or between another student and the instructor” (p. 227). Whether such “self-talking” or internal discourse interaction should be categorized with other forms of more directly observable interaction is debatable. Northrup (2001) proposed five interaction purposes: to interact with content, to collaborate, to converse, to help monitor and regulate learning (intrapersonal interaction), and to support performance. Taking into account the previous definitions, Muirhead and Juwah (2004) described interaction as “a dialogue or discourse or event between two or more participants and objects which occurs synchronously and/or asynchronously mediated by response or feedback and interfaced by technology” (p.13). According to them, interaction serves a wide range of functions in the learning process: promoting active learning, enabling effective facilitation, allowing learner input in the learning process, enabling the development of higher order knowledge and abilities, and enhancing the quality and standards of the learning experiences" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 16).
"Depending on how learning is defined, the image of meaningful interaction is changed (Deubel, 2003; Hannafin, 1989; Vrasidas, 2000). That is, the meaning of meaningful interaction is strongly related to the learning theories underlying the development of particular learning environments. For example, in the behaviorist learning theory called operant conditioning (Skinner, 1954); learning is defined as a change in observable behavior" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 16).
"Since the 1990's, constructivism has exerted a strong influence on education in general and the Instructional Technology field in particular. Although there are many variants of constructivist learning theory (Fosnot, 1996), they share a perspective that learning is defined as meaning making. In other words, according to constructivists, learning requires the personal interpretation of phenomenon such as the construction of a mental model representing complex phenomenon. Therefore, when interactions in a learning environment are designed to enhance meaning making, then those interactions are meaningful within the principles of the constructivist learning theory and within context of interactive learning environments that have been designed according to the theory of constructivism (Gergen, 1999).
"Constructivism has provided different forms of theoretical bases for effective online learning environments as well as for face-to-face classroom learning environments (Jonassen, 1999; Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995). Constructivism is a theory about knowledge and learning. It describes both what 'knowing' is and how one 'comes to know.' (Fosnot, 2005, p. ix). Constructivism rests on the assumption that knowledge is constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experiences (Driscoll, 2000). Knowledge is a function of how the individual creates meaning from his or her experiences (Jonassen et al., 1995). That is, knowledge does not consist of objective truths to be transmitted via media, but formative, developmental, and constructed explanations by humans engaged in meaning-making process (Driscoll, 2000; Fosnot, 1996, 2005; Jonassen et al., 1995; Vrasidas, 2000). Clearly, learning from the constructivist perspective is a human meaning-making venture (Driscoll, 2000; Fosnot, 1996, 2005; Gergen, 1999; Jonassen et al., 1995; Vrasidas, 2000)" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 18).
"Constructivism was greatly influenced by the later work of Jean Piaget and the socio-historical work of Lev Vygotsky (Fosnot, 1996; Gergen, 1999). Piaget believed that in a cognitive sense, the human is also a developing organism just like in a physical and biological sense" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 18).
"Vygotsky, on the other hand, was more focused on the effects of social interaction, language, and culture on learning (Fosnot & Perry, 2005; Jonassen et al., 1995; Vrasidas, 2000). Vygotsky emphasized dialogue. He argued that all cognitive functions originate in social interactions and that learning is not simply the assimilation and accommodation of new knowledge by learners; it is the process by which learners are integrated into a knowledge community (Fosnot & Perry, 2005; Jonassen, 1999; Jonassen et al., 1995; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vrasidas, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky was interested ‘not only in the role of inner speech on the learning of concepts but also on the role of the adult and the learners’ peers as they conversed, questioned, explained, and negotiated meaning’ (Fosnot, 1996, p, 20). In his perspective, meaning making is the process of sharing various perspectives and experiences in communities of practice (Fosnot, 1996; Fosnot & Perry, 2005; Jonassen et al., 1995; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vrasidas, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). Therefore, learning is derived from rich conversation with other people who have similar or different perspectives based on their own life experiences (Jonassen, 1999; Jonassen et al., 1995). We call this theory social constructivism" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 18).
"Authentic tasks have become the center of attention for some researchers focused on employing social constructivist as a theoretical foundation for Web-based learning (Herrington, Reeves, Oliver, & Woo, 2004; Lourdusamy, Khine, & Sipusic, 2002). Using authentic tasks is derived from the social constructivist principle of locating learning in realistic contexts (Stage et al., 1998). The use of authentic tasks is also advocated to foster learning transfer in the belief that the collaboration among students helps them learn not only the concepts under discussion but also how these concepts are used in the workplace or in life (Jaworski, 1994). To accomplish an authentic task, students must interact through sharing what they are thinking, relating their ideas to past experiences, collaborating with their peers, actively constructing their own meaning, and incorporating the diverse perspectives of others (Barr & Tagg, 1995)" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 20).
"Among these efforts, the most representative and comprehensive one may be the one made by Reeves, Herrington, and Oliver (2002) to identify guidelines for educational applications of authentic activities within online learning environments. They identified the following ten main characteristics of authentic activities:
1. Authentic activities have real-world relevance.
2. Authentic activities are ill-defined, requiring students to define the tasks and sub-tasks needed to complete the activity.
3. Authentic activities comprise complex tasks to be investigated by students over a sustained period of time.
4. Authentic activities provide the opportunity for students to examine the task from different perspectives, using a variety of resources.
5. Authentic activities provide the opportunity to collaborate.
6. Authentic activities provide the opportunity to reflect.
7. Authentic activities can be integrated and applied across different subject areas and lead beyond domain-specific outcomes.
8. Authentic activities are seamlessly integrated with assessment.
9. Authentic activities create polished products valuable in their own right rather than as preparation for something else.
10. Authentic activities allow competing solutions and diversity of outcomes" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 21).
"How can we really know whether interaction has affected learning through the process of intersubjectivity, especially in Web-based learning environments? Does the use of authentic tasks guarantee meaningful interaction? Certainly not. ... Therefore, to increase meaningful interaction and to design and apply better interaction activities in Web-based learning environments, the interaction processes need to be analyzed and understood in terms of learning" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 22).
"Meaningful interaction should include responding, negotiating internally and socially, arguing against points, adding to evolving ideas, and offering alternative perspectives with one another while solving some authentic tasks (Jonassen et al., 1995; Lapadat, 2002; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vrasidas, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978)" (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 23).
Anderson, C. (2012). Using Web 2.0 Tools for Feedback in The Classroom. Distance Learning 9(2), 21-27.
Categories: Communication Design, Technology
Summary:
Anderson's article encouraged instructors to keep up with the technology our students use by implementing a feedback process using Web 2.0 tools. She outlined methos of using E-portfolio, Google Docs, Edmundo, Wikis, and Student Response Systems for feedback. Her article aimed to meet the needs of those learning the technologies.
There are two significant challenges with many of the ideas in this article. First, the definition of feedback used from Marzano, Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malensoki (2007), that "feedback provides the evidence that educators need to understand student learning" is accurate but very broad for specific use; if the author had broken down the specific types and methods of feedback and matched them with the specific tools instead of keeping a superficial approach, it would become more useful. The second problem was that--even though they are less than 4 years old--the tools described are outdated due to the improvements in course management software and are redundant to aspects of Moodle, Canvas, and Blackboard.
Summary:
Anderson's article encouraged instructors to keep up with the technology our students use by implementing a feedback process using Web 2.0 tools. She outlined methos of using E-portfolio, Google Docs, Edmundo, Wikis, and Student Response Systems for feedback. Her article aimed to meet the needs of those learning the technologies.
There are two significant challenges with many of the ideas in this article. First, the definition of feedback used from Marzano, Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malensoki (2007), that "feedback provides the evidence that educators need to understand student learning" is accurate but very broad for specific use; if the author had broken down the specific types and methods of feedback and matched them with the specific tools instead of keeping a superficial approach, it would become more useful. The second problem was that--even though they are less than 4 years old--the tools described are outdated due to the improvements in course management software and are redundant to aspects of Moodle, Canvas, and Blackboard.
Monday, February 2, 2015
Sull, E. & Cavanaugh (2011). A minigiud to use of audio files in the disance learning class. Distance Learning, 8(4), 89-94.
Category: Technology
Summary:
Sull and Cavanaugh provide their practical advice on using .mp3 files in teaching. They suggest this format to make interactions and feedback more personal, "An audio file featuring the professor's voice explaining a concept to a student can smooth out the tone of feedback and allow the instructor to describe the problem in a more appealing manner than written text may afford. Their suggestions were not submitted to research methods, but anecdotal from their experiences.
Suggestions for implementing audio files:
p. 91
Summary:
Sull and Cavanaugh provide their practical advice on using .mp3 files in teaching. They suggest this format to make interactions and feedback more personal, "An audio file featuring the professor's voice explaining a concept to a student can smooth out the tone of feedback and allow the instructor to describe the problem in a more appealing manner than written text may afford. Their suggestions were not submitted to research methods, but anecdotal from their experiences.
Suggestions for implementing audio files:
p. 91
- Know how you will use the .mp3 file.
- Consider purchasing a digital voice recorder rather than making .mp3 files with software on your computer.
- Inform students why and how you plan to use .mp3 files.
- Begin each new course with a test .mp3 posting.
- Do not be overly concerned about making a professional production.
- Never let .mp3 files supplant your active presence in the course.
- Use your judgment in how you use .mp3 files with student assignments.
- The length of your .mp3 files can vary.
- Ask students for feedback on the use of .mp3 files.
- Make a few test.mp3 files before posting them for students.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Sull, E. (2009). The (almost) complete guide to effectively managing threaded discussions. Distance Learning, 6(4), 65-70.
Categories: Technology, Communication Design
Summary:
Sull provides his insights on managing threaded discussions in online classrooms in this opinion paper. He provided no references or outside research to support his claims beyond his own personal experiences, leaving his ideas--though good--without the traditional rigor and support expected in peer reviewed journals. Perhaps he felt the ideas are so widely accepted that they did not merit such support, or perhaps his audience is those entering the field who are merely looking for good ideas. Some of his ideas are good. Some are quite suspect and many exceptions to the "rule" exist.
Here are his suggestions:
p. 66
Summary:
Sull provides his insights on managing threaded discussions in online classrooms in this opinion paper. He provided no references or outside research to support his claims beyond his own personal experiences, leaving his ideas--though good--without the traditional rigor and support expected in peer reviewed journals. Perhaps he felt the ideas are so widely accepted that they did not merit such support, or perhaps his audience is those entering the field who are merely looking for good ideas. Some of his ideas are good. Some are quite suspect and many exceptions to the "rule" exist.
Here are his suggestions:
p. 66
- Be sure your students are fully aware of all discussion expectations.
- Give students examples of quality and not-so-good discussion postings.
- Be the first person to post in each threaded discussion.
- Always give a summary posting on the last day of each threaded discussion.
- Be positive and non-judemental in all responses to student postings.
- In proactive and reactive postings make occasional use of your experiences--and their experiences.
- After each of your postings, end with a specific question or two to the class.
- Remain enthusiastic and interested about the postings throughout the thread.
- Be a frequent presence in each discussion thread--but also know the importance of being absent.
- Limit your number of short postings.
- Be sure to transition a previous week's discussion thread to the next one.
- Keep students from straying off topic in their postings.
- Be on the lookout for students who tend to dominate postings.
- Post additional resources to give added interest to discussion topics.
- Be personal in responses by responding specifically to content in student posts and by using students' names.
- Remind students of the assigned reading material that relates to the discussion topic.
- For students hesitant to post ask them to be in charge of a discussion.
- Call on colleagues for input an suggestions, and offer the same to them.
- If feasible use student teams in discussion threads.
- Be sure to respond quickly to students' quentions of you.
- Create a variety of posts to keep students more engaged.
- Be care of killing a thread by posting too much or giving a 'dead-end' post.
- Be always aware of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
- Have students post practical applications of discussion topics if necessary.
- Change discussion topics if it better fits the week.
- If you create your own threaded discussion threads each week, do so wisely.
- Always give constructive feedback.
Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness online: What the research tells us. Elements of quality online education, practice and direction, 4(1), 13-47.
Categories: Research Methods, Technology, Communication Design
Summary:
Swan produced this literature review to explore the research on learning effectiveness in asynchronous online environments. She compiled a collection of significant research projects that indicated there is no significant difference (or positive differences) between online and traditional learning. Her review references over 355 reports, summaries, and papers to that effect. She also found some instances where studies reported significantly worse results in online courses. These were in the minority.
To address the differences in the studies and results, Swan examined and critiqued the current research from Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer's 'Community of Inquiry' model for online learning. Her three tables comparing research findings and implications for practice in the appendix may help online education practitioners to quickly understand the implications of her research.
Citation-worthy:
"LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS means that learners who complete an online program receive educations that represent the distinctive quality of the institution. The goal is that online learning is at least equivalent to learning through the institution’s other delivery modes, in particular through its traditional face-to-face, classroom-based instruction.. . . Interaction is key (Sloan Consortium Elements of Quality: The Sloan-C Framework. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for OnLine Education, 2002" (Swan, 2003, p. 1).
"Central to the concepts of both learning and computer mediation is the notion of interaction. Interaction refers to reciprocal events involving at least two actors and/or objects and at least two actions in which the actors, objects, and events mutually influence each other [27]. No matter what learning theories we hold -- behaviorist, constructivist, cognitivist, or social -- reciprocal events and mutual response in some form must be integral to our notions of how we learn" (Swan, 2003, p. 4).
Researchers concerned with computer-based education have identified three kinds of interactivity that affect learning: interaction with content, interaction with instructors, and interaction among peers. Interaction with content refers both to learners' interactions with the course materials and to their interaction with the concepts and ideas they present. Interaction with instructors includes the myriadways in which instructors teach, guide, correct, and support their students. Interaction among peers refers to interactions among learners which also can take many forms -- debate, collaboration, discussion, peer review, as well as informal and incidental learning among classmates. Each of these modes of interaction support learning and each can be uniquely enacted in online learning Environments. Of course, none of the three modes of interaction function independently in practice. Interaction amongstudents, for example, is supported by instructor facilitation and support, and, because it centers on content, can be seen as a variety of that type of interaction. Thus, a useful way of thinking about the three forms of interaction is provided by Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer’s 'community of inquiry' model of online learning. If one equates cognitive presence in this model with interaction with content, teaching presence with interaction with instructors, and social presence with interaction among students, it gives a good representation of how all three work together to support learning online. At the same time it should be remembered that both teachers and students have social presence, that in many online courses, both teachers and students teach, and that learning is always learning of content" (Swan, 2003, p. 4).
Interaction with content section:
"Janick & Liegle have synthesized the work of a range of instructional design experts in these areas to develop a list of ten concepts that support the effective design of web-based instruction. These are:
• Instructors acting as facilitators
• Use of a variety of presentation styles
• Multiple exercises
• Hands-on problems
• Learner control of pacing
• Frequent testing
• Clear feedback
• Consistent layout
• Clear navigation
• Available help screens" (Swan, 2003, p. 5).
"Chickering and Gamson’s 'Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education,' updated for online learning, are based on research and practice in traditional undergraduate education. These include:
• Contacts between students and faculty
• Reciprocity and cooperation among students
• Active learning techniques
• Prompt feedback
• An emphasis on time on task
• Communication of high expectations
• Respect for diverse talents and ways of learning" (Swan, 2003, p. 6).
Keeton, Scheckley and Griggs have adapted and revised the seven principles according to
a survey of twenty years of teaching practices, basing their eight principles on the practices they find to have had the greatest impact on learning gains in higher education:
• Make learning goals and one or more paths to them clear
• Use deliberate practice and provide prompt constructive feedback
• Provide an optimal balance of challenge and support that is tailored to the individual students’ readiness and potential
• Broaden the learners’ experience of the subject matter
• Elicit active and critical reflection by learners on their growing experience base
• Link inquiries to genuine problems or issues of high interest to the learners to enhance motivation and accelerate their learning
• Develop learners’ effectiveness as learners early in their education
• Create an institutional environment that supports and encourages inquiry" (Swan, 2003, p. 6).
"These sets of organizing concepts seem to have in common, then, is that they suggest online developers and instructors provide:
• Clear goals and expectations for learners,
• Multiple representations of course content,
• Frequent opportunities for active learning,
• Frequent and constructive feedback,
• Flexibility and choice in satisfying course objectives, and
• Instructor guidance and support" (Swan, 2003, p. 6).
"Carol Twigg [26] gathered together a group of innovative online faculty and administrators in a Pew sponsored symposium to discuss paradigm changes in online learning, their overall conclusion was that individualization was the key to innovation in distance
education. Better quality learning, they agreed, would result from the greater personalization of learning experiences for all students. Symposium participants identified five key features of pacesetting programs that support personalization of learning:
• An initial assessment of each student's knowledge, skills, and preferred learning style
• An array of high-quality, interactive learning materials and activities
• Individualized study plans
• Built-in, continuous assessment to provide instantaneous feedback
• Appropriate, varied kinds of human interaction when needed" (Swan, 2003, p. 7).
Interaction with instructors quotations:
"Research on learning through interactions with instructors, however, has yet to clearly document relationships between online teaching behaviors and student learning. Research to date is preliminary but intriguing. It has mostly been correlational and based on interview and survey data and faculty and student perceptions, but these do hint at important relationships between instructor activity and student learning. Initial investigations of instructor roles in online environments also seem quite promising.
Nonetheless, much work still needs to be done in this area" (Swan, 2003, p. 10).
"Several researchers have attempted to categorize the roles online instructors perform to reflect the ways in which they project their presence. Berge, for example, maintains that moderators of online discussions must fulfill four major functions -- managerial, social, pedagogical and technical. Paulson reduces these to three sets of functions -- organizational, social, and intellectual. Rossman provides empirical support for similar categories through the analysis of over three thousand student course evaluations. He found that student comments and complaints concerning their online instructors clustered into three major categories -- teacher responsibility, facilitating discussions, and course requirements (Swan, 2003, p. 12).
Interaction with classmates quotations:
"Socio-cognitive theories of learning maintain that all learning is social in nature and that knowledge is constructed through social interactions. Online education seems particularly well constructed to support such social learning because of the unique nature of asynchronous course discussions. To begin with, all students have a voice and no student can dominate the conversation. The asynchronous nature of the discussion makes it impossible for even an instructor to control. Whereas discussion in traditional classrooms is, for the most part, transacted through and mediated by the instructor, online discussion evolves among participants. Accordingly, many researchers have found that students perceive online discussion as more equitable and more democratic than traditional classroom discourse. In addition, because it is asynchronous, online discussion affords participants the opportunity to reflect on their classmates’ contributions while creating their own, and on their own writing before posting it. This tends to create a certain mindfulness and a culture of reflection in online courses. However, as Eastmond reminds us, computer-mediated communication is not inherently interactive, but depends on the frequency, timeliness, and nature of the messages posted. Ruberg, Moore and Taylor found that computer-mediated communication encouraged experimentation, sharing of ideas,
increased and more distributed participation, and collaborative thinking, but also found that for online discussion to be successful, it required a social environment that encouraged peer interaction facilitated by instructor structuring and support" (Swan, 2003, p. 13).
"Some communication researchers argue that differing media have differing capacities to transmit the non-verbal and vocal cues that produce feelings of immediacy in face-to-face communication. Short, Williams & Christie refer to these capacities as “social presence,” or the “quality of a medium to project the salience of others in interpersonal communication.” They contend that low bandwidth media, such as text-based computer-mediated communication, have less social presence, and by extension promote less learning, than media with greater communication potential. Media richness theory reaches a similar conclusion, as does Picard's more recent notion of "affective channel capacity". Researchers experienced with online teaching and learning, however, contest this view. Participants in computer-media communications, they argue, create social presence by projecting their identities into their communications. Walther, for example, argued that participants in strictly text-based electronic conferences adapt their language to make missing non-verbal and vocal cues explicit and so develop relationships that are marked by affective exchanges. What is important, these researchers contend, is not media capabilities, but rather personal perceptions of presence" (Swan, 2003, pp. 14-15).
"The concept of social presence leads to that of virtual learning communities. Virtual learning communities have been variously defined by differing authors, and variations
on the term, such as 'virtual classrooms', 'computer-supported knowledge-building communities', or "communities of inquiry' confuse the issue even further. Most conceptualizations, however, seem to center on one of two foci relating to research on learning communities in general. Some researchers focus on learning, more specifically, they focus on Scardemalia and Bereiter's notion of learning as collaborative knowledge building. ... Other researchers base their work on Lave and Wenger's groundbreaking
research on learning communities and on the social relationships that support them" (Swan, 2003, p. 17).
"What does the research tell us about learning effectiveness in asynchronous online environments? On the one hand, it tells us that online environments support learning outcomes that are generally equivalent to those resulting from traditional, face-to-face instruction. On the other hand, the research suggests that unique characteristics of the medium may afford and constrain particular kinds of learning. Such affordances and constraints, in turn, suggest certain strategies and approaches that might enhance the learning effectiveness of online instruction. These are summarized in Tables 1 through 3
which connect what we know, or think we know, about learning in asynchronous online environments with suggestions for practice that might either capitalize on unique their affordances or ameliorate their unique constraints (Swan, 2003, pp. 22-23).
Summary:
Swan produced this literature review to explore the research on learning effectiveness in asynchronous online environments. She compiled a collection of significant research projects that indicated there is no significant difference (or positive differences) between online and traditional learning. Her review references over 355 reports, summaries, and papers to that effect. She also found some instances where studies reported significantly worse results in online courses. These were in the minority.
To address the differences in the studies and results, Swan examined and critiqued the current research from Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer's 'Community of Inquiry' model for online learning. Her three tables comparing research findings and implications for practice in the appendix may help online education practitioners to quickly understand the implications of her research.
Citation-worthy:
"LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS means that learners who complete an online program receive educations that represent the distinctive quality of the institution. The goal is that online learning is at least equivalent to learning through the institution’s other delivery modes, in particular through its traditional face-to-face, classroom-based instruction.. . . Interaction is key (Sloan Consortium Elements of Quality: The Sloan-C Framework. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for OnLine Education, 2002" (Swan, 2003, p. 1).
"Central to the concepts of both learning and computer mediation is the notion of interaction. Interaction refers to reciprocal events involving at least two actors and/or objects and at least two actions in which the actors, objects, and events mutually influence each other [27]. No matter what learning theories we hold -- behaviorist, constructivist, cognitivist, or social -- reciprocal events and mutual response in some form must be integral to our notions of how we learn" (Swan, 2003, p. 4).
Researchers concerned with computer-based education have identified three kinds of interactivity that affect learning: interaction with content, interaction with instructors, and interaction among peers. Interaction with content refers both to learners' interactions with the course materials and to their interaction with the concepts and ideas they present. Interaction with instructors includes the myriadways in which instructors teach, guide, correct, and support their students. Interaction among peers refers to interactions among learners which also can take many forms -- debate, collaboration, discussion, peer review, as well as informal and incidental learning among classmates. Each of these modes of interaction support learning and each can be uniquely enacted in online learning Environments. Of course, none of the three modes of interaction function independently in practice. Interaction amongstudents, for example, is supported by instructor facilitation and support, and, because it centers on content, can be seen as a variety of that type of interaction. Thus, a useful way of thinking about the three forms of interaction is provided by Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer’s 'community of inquiry' model of online learning. If one equates cognitive presence in this model with interaction with content, teaching presence with interaction with instructors, and social presence with interaction among students, it gives a good representation of how all three work together to support learning online. At the same time it should be remembered that both teachers and students have social presence, that in many online courses, both teachers and students teach, and that learning is always learning of content" (Swan, 2003, p. 4).
Interaction with content section:
"Janick & Liegle have synthesized the work of a range of instructional design experts in these areas to develop a list of ten concepts that support the effective design of web-based instruction. These are:
• Instructors acting as facilitators
• Use of a variety of presentation styles
• Multiple exercises
• Hands-on problems
• Learner control of pacing
• Frequent testing
• Clear feedback
• Consistent layout
• Clear navigation
• Available help screens" (Swan, 2003, p. 5).
"Chickering and Gamson’s 'Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education,' updated for online learning, are based on research and practice in traditional undergraduate education. These include:
• Contacts between students and faculty
• Reciprocity and cooperation among students
• Active learning techniques
• Prompt feedback
• An emphasis on time on task
• Communication of high expectations
• Respect for diverse talents and ways of learning" (Swan, 2003, p. 6).
Keeton, Scheckley and Griggs have adapted and revised the seven principles according to
a survey of twenty years of teaching practices, basing their eight principles on the practices they find to have had the greatest impact on learning gains in higher education:
• Make learning goals and one or more paths to them clear
• Use deliberate practice and provide prompt constructive feedback
• Provide an optimal balance of challenge and support that is tailored to the individual students’ readiness and potential
• Broaden the learners’ experience of the subject matter
• Elicit active and critical reflection by learners on their growing experience base
• Link inquiries to genuine problems or issues of high interest to the learners to enhance motivation and accelerate their learning
• Develop learners’ effectiveness as learners early in their education
• Create an institutional environment that supports and encourages inquiry" (Swan, 2003, p. 6).
"These sets of organizing concepts seem to have in common, then, is that they suggest online developers and instructors provide:
• Clear goals and expectations for learners,
• Multiple representations of course content,
• Frequent opportunities for active learning,
• Frequent and constructive feedback,
• Flexibility and choice in satisfying course objectives, and
• Instructor guidance and support" (Swan, 2003, p. 6).
"Carol Twigg [26] gathered together a group of innovative online faculty and administrators in a Pew sponsored symposium to discuss paradigm changes in online learning, their overall conclusion was that individualization was the key to innovation in distance
education. Better quality learning, they agreed, would result from the greater personalization of learning experiences for all students. Symposium participants identified five key features of pacesetting programs that support personalization of learning:
• An initial assessment of each student's knowledge, skills, and preferred learning style
• An array of high-quality, interactive learning materials and activities
• Individualized study plans
• Built-in, continuous assessment to provide instantaneous feedback
• Appropriate, varied kinds of human interaction when needed" (Swan, 2003, p. 7).
Interaction with instructors quotations:
"Research on learning through interactions with instructors, however, has yet to clearly document relationships between online teaching behaviors and student learning. Research to date is preliminary but intriguing. It has mostly been correlational and based on interview and survey data and faculty and student perceptions, but these do hint at important relationships between instructor activity and student learning. Initial investigations of instructor roles in online environments also seem quite promising.
Nonetheless, much work still needs to be done in this area" (Swan, 2003, p. 10).
"Several researchers have attempted to categorize the roles online instructors perform to reflect the ways in which they project their presence. Berge, for example, maintains that moderators of online discussions must fulfill four major functions -- managerial, social, pedagogical and technical. Paulson reduces these to three sets of functions -- organizational, social, and intellectual. Rossman provides empirical support for similar categories through the analysis of over three thousand student course evaluations. He found that student comments and complaints concerning their online instructors clustered into three major categories -- teacher responsibility, facilitating discussions, and course requirements (Swan, 2003, p. 12).
Interaction with classmates quotations:
"Socio-cognitive theories of learning maintain that all learning is social in nature and that knowledge is constructed through social interactions. Online education seems particularly well constructed to support such social learning because of the unique nature of asynchronous course discussions. To begin with, all students have a voice and no student can dominate the conversation. The asynchronous nature of the discussion makes it impossible for even an instructor to control. Whereas discussion in traditional classrooms is, for the most part, transacted through and mediated by the instructor, online discussion evolves among participants. Accordingly, many researchers have found that students perceive online discussion as more equitable and more democratic than traditional classroom discourse. In addition, because it is asynchronous, online discussion affords participants the opportunity to reflect on their classmates’ contributions while creating their own, and on their own writing before posting it. This tends to create a certain mindfulness and a culture of reflection in online courses. However, as Eastmond reminds us, computer-mediated communication is not inherently interactive, but depends on the frequency, timeliness, and nature of the messages posted. Ruberg, Moore and Taylor found that computer-mediated communication encouraged experimentation, sharing of ideas,
increased and more distributed participation, and collaborative thinking, but also found that for online discussion to be successful, it required a social environment that encouraged peer interaction facilitated by instructor structuring and support" (Swan, 2003, p. 13).
"Some communication researchers argue that differing media have differing capacities to transmit the non-verbal and vocal cues that produce feelings of immediacy in face-to-face communication. Short, Williams & Christie refer to these capacities as “social presence,” or the “quality of a medium to project the salience of others in interpersonal communication.” They contend that low bandwidth media, such as text-based computer-mediated communication, have less social presence, and by extension promote less learning, than media with greater communication potential. Media richness theory reaches a similar conclusion, as does Picard's more recent notion of "affective channel capacity". Researchers experienced with online teaching and learning, however, contest this view. Participants in computer-media communications, they argue, create social presence by projecting their identities into their communications. Walther, for example, argued that participants in strictly text-based electronic conferences adapt their language to make missing non-verbal and vocal cues explicit and so develop relationships that are marked by affective exchanges. What is important, these researchers contend, is not media capabilities, but rather personal perceptions of presence" (Swan, 2003, pp. 14-15).
"The concept of social presence leads to that of virtual learning communities. Virtual learning communities have been variously defined by differing authors, and variations
on the term, such as 'virtual classrooms', 'computer-supported knowledge-building communities', or "communities of inquiry' confuse the issue even further. Most conceptualizations, however, seem to center on one of two foci relating to research on learning communities in general. Some researchers focus on learning, more specifically, they focus on Scardemalia and Bereiter's notion of learning as collaborative knowledge building. ... Other researchers base their work on Lave and Wenger's groundbreaking
research on learning communities and on the social relationships that support them" (Swan, 2003, p. 17).
"What does the research tell us about learning effectiveness in asynchronous online environments? On the one hand, it tells us that online environments support learning outcomes that are generally equivalent to those resulting from traditional, face-to-face instruction. On the other hand, the research suggests that unique characteristics of the medium may afford and constrain particular kinds of learning. Such affordances and constraints, in turn, suggest certain strategies and approaches that might enhance the learning effectiveness of online instruction. These are summarized in Tables 1 through 3
which connect what we know, or think we know, about learning in asynchronous online environments with suggestions for practice that might either capitalize on unique their affordances or ameliorate their unique constraints (Swan, 2003, pp. 22-23).
Thacker, C., & Dayton, D. (2008). Using Web 2.0 to Conduct Qualitative Research. Technical Communication, 55(4), 383-391.
Category: Research Methods
Summary:
Thacker and Dayton presented their ideas about how to use Web 2.0 tools to gather data, conduct research, and further technical communication studies. They discuss a recommended design for a Firsthand Report website (FHR). Their article contains an effective table (not available below) worth reading that explores the differences between interview-based qualitative research and a firsthand report website.
Citation-worthy:
"To improve qualitative data gathering using Internet-mediated communication, researchers would benefit greatly if they had a Web site that enabled them to: [1] Impose some unifornity of structure on and embed metadata in the textual information as it is collected; [2] Facilitate timely interaction to clarify and elaborate the texts first presented by informants; [3] Provde data exploration tools built into the primary data collection platform; [4] Enable teams of researchers to work closely together to collect and analyze information presented over time by many informants. The technology to build such Web sites already exists, and it is being implemented widely" (Thacker & Dayton, 2008, p. 384).
"The FHR Web site has three primary functions: (1) to collect information from numerous people on a relatively narrow topic; (2) to enable easy search and retrieval of the knowledgebase thus created; and (3) to build the social cohesion and communication that characterize healthy virtual communities" (Thacker & Dayton, 2008, p. 386).
"Users of the FHR Web site will interact with fellow community members and the information on the sit through a relatively small set of key functions.
literature of technical communication in arguing for a similarly participative ideal in evaluating the validity of qualitative research. Contrasting their stance to the views of several other scholars in technical communication and in composition studies, they state '[W]e need to view validity as being more than a matter of determining whether, in fact, we are measuring what we think or say we are measuring, which is how many
scholars continue to define validity' (128). Paraphrasing the views of Kirsch (1992, 257), Blakeslee and colleagues (1999) agreed that researchers doing qualitative studies in technical communication 'should open up our research agendas to our participants, listen to their stories, and allow them to actively participate, as much as possible, in the design, development, and reporting of our research' (132). They acknowledge the difficulties of implementing that vision of participatory research (Thacker & Dayton, 2008, pp. 387-388).
Summary:
Thacker and Dayton presented their ideas about how to use Web 2.0 tools to gather data, conduct research, and further technical communication studies. They discuss a recommended design for a Firsthand Report website (FHR). Their article contains an effective table (not available below) worth reading that explores the differences between interview-based qualitative research and a firsthand report website.
Citation-worthy:
"To improve qualitative data gathering using Internet-mediated communication, researchers would benefit greatly if they had a Web site that enabled them to: [1] Impose some unifornity of structure on and embed metadata in the textual information as it is collected; [2] Facilitate timely interaction to clarify and elaborate the texts first presented by informants; [3] Provde data exploration tools built into the primary data collection platform; [4] Enable teams of researchers to work closely together to collect and analyze information presented over time by many informants. The technology to build such Web sites already exists, and it is being implemented widely" (Thacker & Dayton, 2008, p. 384).
"The FHR Web site has three primary functions: (1) to collect information from numerous people on a relatively narrow topic; (2) to enable easy search and retrieval of the knowledgebase thus created; and (3) to build the social cohesion and communication that characterize healthy virtual communities" (Thacker & Dayton, 2008, p. 386).
"Users of the FHR Web site will interact with fellow community members and the information on the sit through a relatively small set of key functions.
- Profile: A personal profile space that features all of the user’s relevant demographic and psychographic information. The profile is also the main gateway for users to interface with an informant’s first-hand reports, blogs, and discussion. Firsthand Report: Structured narrative accounts generated from a uniform sequence of prompts created by the research team.
- Search: A search engine that queries the site’s database to find relevant information from the inputsand preferences of the user.
- Forum: The site’s threaded message board that is accessible to the public. The message board is designed for members of the community to discuss topics in an open forum, interacting with guests—visitors to the site who have not joined the site or have not been approved for membership in the site by the principal investigator (PI) and/or the research team.
- Help: A wiki that addresses common issues pertaining to the site. The wiki will be initiated and maintained by the research team, but any member will have the ability to comment on any page, and some members who volunteer for the role will be able to edit pages" (Thacker & Dayton, 2008, p. 386).
literature of technical communication in arguing for a similarly participative ideal in evaluating the validity of qualitative research. Contrasting their stance to the views of several other scholars in technical communication and in composition studies, they state '[W]e need to view validity as being more than a matter of determining whether, in fact, we are measuring what we think or say we are measuring, which is how many
scholars continue to define validity' (128). Paraphrasing the views of Kirsch (1992, 257), Blakeslee and colleagues (1999) agreed that researchers doing qualitative studies in technical communication 'should open up our research agendas to our participants, listen to their stories, and allow them to actively participate, as much as possible, in the design, development, and reporting of our research' (132). They acknowledge the difficulties of implementing that vision of participatory research (Thacker & Dayton, 2008, pp. 387-388).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)