online silence

Michael Zemblyas & Charalambos (2007)

Listening for Silence in Text-Based Online encounters.

Distance Education, 28, 1, 5-24

Note: lots of examples of illocutionary force in the examples.

Silence as an aspect of social presence.

When and why are student silent – assumes p 7 the multidimensional meanings of online silence are a critical component of social presence

FTF

They have nothing to say/add

They may feel that contributions are not valued and therefore choose to remain silent

They may feel insecure and/or shy

They may need time to think

However in online environments silence is often assumed to be down to non participation or marginialization.

Research questions

RQ1 p8 ‘ What forms and meanings do online silences take within text-based communications, and how are those forms and meanings enacted?

RQ2 “how do online instructors address silence in constructive ways, considering that silence is an important part of text-based communication?’

Method

Ethnographic perspective ‘ an ethnographioc perspective does not focus on understanding an entire culture, but rather can be used to take a more focused look at the actions of members of a group.

Two phases

1. Content analysis of all content

2. Interviews

Interviewed instructors with ‘ a focus on the different meanings and forms that silence took in their online encounters with learners’.

Used purposive sampling to select 4 students for interview ie the ones that ‘would provide optimal variation ( Patton, 2002) of interpretations about online silence’

Semi structured – prompted to make reference to events that made them feel uncomfortable, confused or concerned

Joyful and pleased

With prompts used to explore whether these feelings were related to online silence.

All interviewees asked to check researcher interpretations.

Analysis

Thematic analysis - Going from the particular meaning to generalizations p10 ‘propositional statements that indicate relationships and generalizations in the data’

Four themes

1. Silence as ‘non participation’ ie conscious decision not to participate

‘ I thought we were doing this online course because it allows us flexibility’

‘not keen on hearing the same old stuff’

‘pretty soon is was kind of pitiful’

2. Silence as confusion

Without gaze information it may not be obvious to whom a response is directed that can then lead to confusion. Emoticons , when used, did not always disambiguate.

P15 ‘ one thing, I was thinking something else, and it just didn’t match, until we talked later on the phone’

3. Silence as marginalization

P16 ‘But some postings receive no responses or are responded to without addressing the real issue…. Humour is usually a means to dismiss serious discussions…… I complained about this to my instructor. I feel that I am silenced, you know? I don’t feel welcomed and so I don’t participate in the online discussions as often as I used to’

4. Silence as thoughtful reflection

P18 ‘ not an emoppty silence but a thoughtful silence’

Due to my cultural background ‘ Having the opportunity to think and phrase my response carefully before i post it , is really important to me…..’

problem arises ‘how long do you wait for a response in a threaded discussion ….. if you go ahead and continue with the discussion , wouldn’t this be interpreted as disregarding this individual?’ In FTF some judgement could be made from NVC

Suggestions for tutors based on interview data from tutors

Ask students to post a certain number of responses and to participate

Review online discussions for quality and provide more or less facilitation as a consequence where facilitation involves 9 synthesising themes or conflicting opinions, redirecting a lagging discussion

Asking good open ended questions

Have frequent and consistent interaction with students to encourage openness and trust.

Ie fit with Salmon advice

Barron (2003)

Bridget Barron (2003)

When Smart Groups Fail

The Journal of Learning Science,12(3), 307-359

no tutor, 6th graders, face to face, all triads

Value of collaboration and the problems that can occur

P308 ‘intense interaction between partners, nurtures achievements when partners share interests, knowledge, personal history, and a commitment to work ‘ quotes John-Steiner, 2000.

but

‘groups are source of aggravation, feelings of wasted time and discouragement’ ( Salomon & Globerson, 1989)

outcomes of collaborative groups can be very different, i.e. there is variance between groups

p309 ‘ there is a need for better articulation of the characteristics of interactions that lead to differentially productive joint efforts’ p301 ‘ even when the knowledge or insights that individual members generate does not differ between groups’

units of analysis – individual or group

Therefore

‘research in this article is concerned with advancing the understanding of how the microinteractional processes between collaborators ‘ influence collective achievements and what individuals learn from their interactions’

Three Main ( general) ideas

Attention ‘ management of attention is a fundamental aspect of interactional work during collaborative problem solving’, quotes Roschelle, Teasley

In Face to face there are non verbal strategies for joint attention eg pointing, tapping, moving to share perspective of the workgroup

Metacognitive comments eg need to keep pace

‘both speakers and listeners have consequential roles to play in establishing joint attention’

there are ‘barriers that some participants face having their ideas heard and how this is particularly challenging if partners are self-focused’ KRO seems that it applies to 6^th graders also. On the other hand ‘persistence coupled with increasing strength of presentation can pay off’ but might be offputting or discouraging, particularly for more passive members.

think in terms of a ‘cognitive space’ plus ‘a relational space’ ‘which are negotiated simultaneously and can compete for limited attention’ ‘ information made available in the space from the self and from others’ activities must be integrated’ ie relational aspects of the interpersonal context.

There is sometimes an unwillingness to negotiate a shared space.

Crook 1996, p116 describes ‘intersubjective attitude’

Fogel (1993) p337 ‘ true communication takes co-regulation , a willingness and openness to be influenced by others’

P331

“Maintaining the group as a unit of analysis focuses attention on the emergent patterns of interaction and allows for the identification of individual conversational moves that shift patterns’ eg persistence

‘an important property of language in interaction is its flexibility and generativeness. Silence, repetition of ideas, eye gaze, gestures, physical synchrony, laughter, pauses, interruptions and overlaps in turn taking do not have single meanings but have productive ambiguity, thus depending on the context they signal different things to different people’.

RQs

1. ‘What interactional processes are associated with better group problem solving’

2. ‘How does the quality of group problem solving relate to individual learning as indicated by subsequent independent performance on the same and a related problem’

3. ‘What social and cognitive factors contribute to the emergence of more and less productive interactional patterns’

p312 ‘ Although Rochelle’s analysis focused mostly on the cognitive aspects of creating a joint problem space other studies suggest that to deeply understand the nature of productive collaboration, attention must be paid to the ecology of relations that develops within interactions that allow group members to access and functionally express knowledge and other cognitive resources’

e.g.

Engle & Conant (2002) describe a student scenario with sustained debate over several weeks p312 ‘ students passionate engagement was reflected in intensive emotional displays, persistence in having their ideas heard, additional research, and continued attention over weeks’ . A key aspect of their discourse that allowed for productive learning conversation rather than developing into argumentation shouting matches was the appropriation of scholarly moves such as various kinds of evidence to justify their claims’ KRO what is the equivalent, appropriation of moves, for social ?

Design

Problem

How to get back from Cedar Creek before nightfall – based on mathematical calculations. 6^th graders, similar ability > 75%, same gender triads.

Students required to complete a workbook that posed 8 questions ( 2 planning, 3 subproblems planning questions, 3 solutions). Analysis based on the first subproblem.

Groups were videotaped

Group as the unit of analysis

IV Level of group performance on a complex problem

DV uptake of a correct proposal and response sequences ; based on the observation that correct proposals were not always taken up.

Scoring

Three calculations required for the first subproblem. 0,1, or 2 for each i.e. 1 for partial , 2 for a total solution.

Individual as unit of analysis

Ability of individuals to solve similar problems in the future.

Group as the unit of analysis

Time sequence of proposals and responses

Scoring

Transcripts parsed into turns. Backchannel e.g. umhh, yeah, aldo considered as turns

Analysis

6 staged approach. 1,2,3,4,& 6 based on group as the unit of analysis

Quant (1-5), qual (6)

1. Group problem (sub) solving compared

7 gained total solution, 1 a partial solution, 4 below 50% correct

2. Groups compared for other variables

prior achievement

number of turns

difference beteen partners in turns taken

correct proposals made

3. apply a coding scheme for the way in which correct proposals are responded too.

Three categories, accept, discuss, reject or ignore.

Chi square analysis- significant association between success of groups and pattern of response to proposals.

4. Links between a correct proposal and the relatedness of the prior discussion.

Used the video data

Using Chi square analysis , two associations are confirmed.

Success and relatedness to previous discussion

Relatededness to the prior discussion and acceptance of a correct proposal

5. Individual student subsequent performance

Students in the success groups performed better than student in the unsuccessful groups

6. Sequential view of the interrelation between cognitive and social based on four triads. p331 ‘maintaining the group as a unit of analysis focuses attention on the emergent pattern of interaction and allows for the identification of individual conversational moves that can shift patterns’

Four groups, 2 successful (c&d), 2 unsuccessful (a&b) included in this analysis

Group a

Competitive nature of exchanges.

Claims of competence

Failure to acknowledge the contribution of others

Domination of the workbook

3^rd member used mainly as a scribe

Group b

Parallel efforts on different parts of the problem

3^rd member mostly used as a scribe but makes timely and appropriate suggestions albeit in a hesitant way. Although one other member begins to take notice, other member jumps in with own ideas. Example of a damaged turn Erikson 1996, p37-38 due to hesitancy

Group c

Triad who confronted some of the same issues as group b but who had members that demanded the joint attention be preserved. Third member used physical contact when necessary. There was also evidence of metacommunication ‘wait until the first parties written down’

During initial brainstorming all three were visibly excited and engaged. Third member took on observer role to some extent for part of the time whilst other two put forward parallel ideas

Group 4

‘exchange of conversational turns is rapid ‘ with all three participating. Joint attention and joint problem space maintained throughout.’ P347 the workbook served as a centre of co-ordination ( suchman, 1997, p42) for group work

‘In the two most successful groups, we see an interweaving of members own content space work with an awareness of others’ progress’

Portraits of interactional contexts

‘In less successful cases, relational issues arose that prevented the group from capitalizing on the insights that fellow members had generated. These included competitive interactions, differential efforts to collaborate, self-focused problem solving trajectories.

Behaviorally these manifested as violation of turn taking norms, difficulties in gaining the floor, domination of the workbook, competing claims of competence’

‘Persistence and resistance to dominating efforts were effective’

p349 ‘successful achievement of a joint problem-solving space was especially reflected in high rates of huddling around workbooks and mutual gaze’…….’it was not that more successful groups were immune to problems of coordination but rather that members used strategies that recruited or evoked a joint focus of attention’

lead to

idea of ‘a between person state of engagement’

Finally author broadly discusses three issues

Ethos/assessment approaches that value competition over collaboration

Previous practice and experience eg norms, appropriation of practice

Friendship and familiarity including familiarity with practice

K & S, engagement

Kearsley & Shneiderman (1999)

Engagement Theory: A Framework for technology-based teaching and learning

http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm





Engagement theory

p1 ‘ students must be meaningullly engaged in learning activities through interaction with others and worthwhile tasks’

intrinsically motivating due to meaningful nature

it is aligned with other theoretical frameworks

constructivist

situated learning

androgogy

Engagement theory Framework

Relate – occurs in a group context i.e. collaborative teams

Create – project based

Donate- has an outside ( authentic) focus

Authors argue that e-learning technologies facilitate all of these i.e. technology has a positive role to play.

Lit support ( Hilz (1994), Harasim et al, 1995) Hilz study spanned many years, courses and instructors. E-learning contexts led to better mastery of course materials, greater student satisfaction, higher level of students reported learning than for traditional classroom experiences

Research questions ( suggested by the authrors)

1. What curricula, disciplines or age groups is engagement theory most/least effective with?

2. What skills do students need in order to effectively participate in collaborative activities? How should they acquire these skills?

3. How should individual differences be addressed in collaborative work?

4. What kind of student evaluation methods are most appropriate to the application of engagement theory?

5. Which component of engagement theory (i.e., relate, create, donate) is the most important in terms of different aspects of learning?

6. How do we best prepare (retrain) instructors to apply engagement theory?

7. What kind of groupware (collaborative software tools) would best support engagement theory?

8. How does engagement theory "scale up" for large classes and many simultaneous courses at the same or different institutions?

K & S engagement

Kearsley & Shneiderman (1999)

Engagement Theory: A Framework for technology-based teaching and learning
http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm




Engagement theory
p1 ‘ students must be meaningullly engaged in learning activities through interaction with others and worthwhile tasks’

intrinsically motivating due to meaningful nature

it is aligned with other theoretical frameworks
constructivist
situated learning
androgogy

Engagement theory Framework
Relate – occurs in a group context i.e. collaborative teams
Create – project based
Donate- has an outside ( authentic) focus

Authors argue that e-learning technologies facilitate all of these i.e. technology has a positive role to play.

Lit support ( Hilz (1994), Harasim et al, 1995) Hilz study spanned many years, courses and instructors. E-learning contexts led to better mastery of course materials, greater student satisfaction, higher level of students reported learning than for traditional classroom experiences

Research questions ( suggested by the authrors)
1. What curricula, disciplines or age groups is engagement theory most/least effective with?
2. What skills do students need in order to effectively participate in collaborative activities? How should they acquire these skills?
3. How should individual differences be addressed in collaborative work?
4. What kind of student evaluation methods are most appropriate to the application of engagement theory?
5. Which component of engagement theory (i.e., relate, create, donate) is the most important in terms of different aspects of learning?
6. How do we best prepare (retrain) instructors to apply engagement theory?
7. What kind of groupware (collaborative software tools) would best support engagement theory?
8. How does engagement theory "scale up" for large classes and many simultaneous courses at the same or different institutions?

chat v W/B Dillenbourgh and Traum

Pierre Dillenbourg & David Traum (2006)

Sharing solutions: Persistence and Grounding in Multimodal Collaborative Problem Solving

The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 121-151

Questions

P122

‘What are the cognitive effects of specific types of interaction?’

‘Under what conditions do these interactions appear?’

Emphasis on

· differences in scale( how many, how long)

· complexities of what is being shared.

Grounding ( originally a term used in psycholinguistics for communication between pairs)

‘When community members interact over months and years they develop a specific culture ( relevance to group character). This culture is what common ground is to the pair. Cultures share not only concepts but a system of values, a frame for interpreting situations, a set of stories, and a history ( KRO also a way of communicating) .

Software for collaboration (***)

P122-123 “If collaborative learning is a side effect of the process of building shared understanding then CSCL should investigate how software contributes to build shared understanding. On obvious answer is that building a common visual representation (textual or graphical) of the problem at hand contributes to the construction of shared understanding’. WSIWIS ( what you see is what I see). N.b. no individual will share exactly the same understanding of this space as another.

Collaboration as a process

Communication

Diagnosis ( leads to feedback)

Feedback (acknowledgement, repair, KRO ?? support and can only take place in the forum)

‘Misunderstanding has a different epistemic value in research on efficient communication and research in collaborative learning’ For the former it is communication break down ( KRO the social aspect of group collaboration) and in the latter a learning opportunity.

To repair misunderstandings about knowledge learners have to engage in construction activities , i.e. extra effort. ( KRO and therefore the need for a forum)

Grounding behaviour varies with the media involved. There are media- related constraints

Clark & Brenman (1991)	Dillenbourg & Traum (2006)
Co-presence
Visibility object is present
Audibility have to elicit information about an object as it is not visible
cotemporality
simultaneity
sequentiality
reviewability	persistence
revisability	Mutual reveisability

Research Question

‘What is the complementarity between a whiteboard and a chat interface in constructing shared understanding?’

Hypothesis ‘W/B would be subordinated to the chat interface and that the role of the WB would be to support the grounding of the textual interactions in the MOO’ note W/B allows for deitic gestures and therefore reduces the distance of what is being represented. That the whiteboard would enable pairs to draw schemata that carry information that is difficult to carry through verbal expression’

Participants

20 pairs of post grad psychology students. Different l amounts of MOO expertise and most had no previous experience of working with each other.

Chat interface, a MOO ( a text based virtual environment, users represented by an avatar that is able to perform actions in space , including leaving and entering). Language based, sequential)

W/B graphically and spatially orientated, colour

Cost of interaction higher in both of these environments than in f-to-f.

Task – solve a murder

Crime scene - Hotel , spatial map in the MOO environment . 11 people, 1 victim several objects.

Role of grounding – what variables were measured

· Acknowledgement rate

· Medium used ( chat or W/B)

· Content categories of acknowledgements

Task knowledge

Management

Meta communication

Technical

· Measures of redundancy ( KRO good measure to think about) in terms of learning it is a measure of inefficiency.

Findings

Interaction more likely to be acknowledge if it carries an emotional load

For task knowledge there is more acknowledgement for inferences than for facts

Hypothesis about the role of the w/b was not supported . Although some pairs drew timelines, maps graphs (SNA type) W/B was mainly used for organising information – the facts and inferences and representing the state of the problem.

Conclusions

The dialogues were instrumental for grounding whiteboard information

Due to persistency of display information on W/b acted as a trigger

W/B does not ground utterances, it grounds the discussion

wikis as systems

Ulrike Cress, Joachim Kimmerle (2008)

A systematic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 105-122

Aim

(Stahl, G(2002) Contributions to a theoretical framework for CSCL. In Stahl (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education(pp. 62-71). USA: Boulder - for the relevance of artefacts in CSCL)

p107 ‘ wikis potential for collaborative learning lies in theor ability to allow for debate-based learning experiences’

P106 ‘ the systematic analysis of the potential of wikis as tools for knowledge building’

Question

“What makes wikis supportive of learning and knowledge building’ ( deliberately avoids discussing shortcomings)

The question presupposes that a person’s individual knowledge can serve as a resource for other people’s learning. ( Scardamelia & Bereiter, 1994)

Approach

Systematic (KRO ? systems) ‘ the differential modes of operation in social and cognitive systems

Cognitive :

Social systems ( e.g. wiki)

thinks in terms of learning (internal) and knowledge building (external). Makes a distinction between internal (learning) and knowledge building (external).

See wikis as a social system.

attributes motivation to the perception of incongruities although acknowledges that motivational aspects are intrinsically linked to the cognitive and the socio-cultural, in particular, the cognitive and socio-cognitive processes can help to explain the motivational processes.

Influences

Luhmann, 1984 on systems p108 ‘ systems are dynamic – they develop over time and consist of operations. A system ceases when the mode of operation ceases. Such operations are defined as production of elements with the help of elements in the same system. This definition implies that systems are autopoietic and self-referential.

The environment can irritate. ‘The system cannot anticipate what will happen in the environment……. But after being irritated, a system may be able to select a limited amount of information available outside its borders. By operating on this information it reduces external complexity, establishes new elements and relations, and this increases its internal complexity’

Systems

· Biological

· Cognitive

· Social

communication without cognitions. Luhmann points out that systems are operationally closed, …… social and cognitive systems cannot directly correspond with each other’ but they can influence each other based on the concept of structural coupling.

In terms of this paper

Cognitive system is the wiki user/contributor

Social system is the wiki

P109 ‘ Social systems are structurally coupled with cognitive systems via language’ ( KRO for a wiki this is written)

And that processes of internalisation and externalisation allow for a crossing of the borders between internalisation and externalisation.

Externalisation

The user needs to be able to transfer internal knowledge to the wiki. After this process of externalisation the wiki exists independently from the person’ knowledge. In order to externalise the user has to deepen and clarify own knowledge (Flower and Hayes (1980) as well as Webb (1982). Therefore the process of externalisation leads to learning for the individual

Internalisation

If people internalise information from the wiki knowledge can develop which was formerly neither part of their personal knowledge nor part of the wiki’ i.e. p112 ‘ if people are able to infer new knowledge out of the knowledge they internalized through the work with the wiki and the knowledge they had before then leaning has occurred’ i.e.emergent knowledge.

Authors argue that this process of internalisation and externalisation’ is more than knowledge sharing’ it is built and if externalised to the wiki it is represented within the wiki

How do people internalise

Piagetian concepts - assimilation, accommodation and equilibrium

Assimilation - the way a person ‘understands new information on the basis of existing knowledge and then integrates it into prior knowledge’ i.e. the bits of information that fit with existing knowledge are added

Accomodation ‘people interact with new knowledge in a way that changes their knowledge’

When using a wiki assimilation and accommodation take place in the social systems ( the wiki)

Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., & Yates, D. (2006) Corporate wiki users: results of a survey. Proceddings of WikiSym’06 -2006 International Symposium on Wikis 2006, 99-104.’ That there are ‘adders’ and ‘synthesisers’

Learning and knowledge building considered together

Internal assimilation

Internal accommodation

External assimilation

External accommodation

Motivational aspects of the model

Piaget – idea of equilibration

Luhmann – idea of irritation from outside a system

The effects of a lack of equilibration ( Piaget) or irritation ( system) depends on the valence of the topic. Figure on p118

KRO As with stress) there is an optimal level of incongruity. ( KRO too little incongruity and its not worth bothering about, too much incongruity and users give up) For any levels of incongruity between these extremes the cognitive conflict is higher more meaningful the topic.

(KRO remember this is a proposition that is not evidenced)

Collaboration and interaction

(KRO makes one think about what constitutes interaction here, - there is interaction with the knowledge but to what extent is there interaction with others)

Collaboration p211 “ Inter-individual knowledge transfer and collaborative knowledge building takes place when people have the opportunity to work with a wiki and internalize the information available in the wiki’ i.e. they have to integrate it ( either by assimilation or accommodation) into their own knowledge’

wiki, RE,

Shailey Minocha & Peter G. Thomas

Collaborative Learning in Wiki Environment: Experiences from a software engineering course.

New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 13,2, 187-209

Pedagogical claims for the wiki

P190

‘allows for the generation of social constructivist scenarios wherein a group of learners collaboratively construct shared artifacts’

( KRO – an artifact implies a finished product. What aspects of the finished product influence learning?)

‘facilitates student collaboration via co-production of text and development of argument and concensus by communication of ideas through a shared online workspace’

(KRO I thought there were some methodological flaws – see later; more importantly I do not think that there is any evidence for concensus nor would I expect that the wiki to provide a way of reaching a concensus. When you write something to a wiki you are externalizing an idea as a product rather than offering up as an idea in progress . A discussion does just that it invites a different opinion whereas committing to a wiki does not.)

Purpose of collaboration

P195 in a RE context ‘ the collaboration involves discussing duplications, conflicts, and ambiguities with the aim of achieving an agreed set of unambiguous requirements’

p188

‘wiki can grow and evolve and therefore address pedagogical objectives such as ‘

student involvement

· group activity

· peer and tutor review

· knowledge sharing

· knowledge creation

· all from Minocha et al, 2007.

Design

Salmon’s 5 stage model influenced the design.

Used assessment as main design element ( Shared wiki 4-7 students)

TMA01

Papers about wikis

Guidance on using a wiki including for collaborative work, wiki-netiquette,

Ice- breaker using the wiki - add a small piece of biographical information, opt for a stakeholder role – seen as exchange of information stage of the Salmon model.

TMA02

Each student adds three requirements to the wiki from his/her chosen perspective

TMA03

Agree on a set of fit criteria ( KRO only time there is real sense of having to work together?)

Through the exercise on reflection ( see below)

Reflective activity

P196 ‘ Reflection is a strategy that facilitates learning ( Moon ,2000). It is the reexamination and reinterpretation of experiences and is central to effective learning and development.’ ( KRO inner language)

The course provided a reflective tool ( trigger questions) and asked students to apply it across 3 dimensions

Experience of using the wiki as a tool

Personal views of the course and collaboration in particular

Role of collaboration in RE. Requirements engineering)

Data sources

Sample of 40 reflective account ( from TMA03)

Discussion forum – no of messages = 40 for 117+ students)

Direct emails from students (15)

Direct emails from tutors (14)

Research questions

1. Did the wiki activities facilitate collaborative learning? 26 said tes, 5 to some extent 77.5%

(KRO rather an ambiguous formulation)

2. did the wiki activities enhance understanding of RE 75%

3. was reflection effective 95%

Findings

KRO findings based on a thematic analysis that was strange . Themes identified , then sub themes.

Also

Question of whther or not the responses were influenced by being part of the assessment.

Also

Not sure whether or not the findings relate directly to the themes.

Collaboration & learning

P201 ‘group knowledge quickly becomes aggregated in one place.’

Wiki is an inappropriate medium for discussion, lack of threading & time stamps

Wiki as a tool

Continual availability

Facilitative qualities ( used group discussion pages – although overall this discussion page was not considered the appropriate tool }

Cost savings

Traceability ( impoerant for assessment and for RE)

Tensions

Collaborative work and self pacing of the busy distance learner

P202 ‘ I organize my studying around my life NOW….. I’m being asked to organize my life around my studying’

P204 ‘ synchronous discussion medium for timely decision making’ (KRO producing a collaborative artifact inevitably requires this’

Navigation poor – always have to return to the root page no alerts ( now there is a facility)

No locking facility (KRO I think this is now available)