 |
Figure 1. Learning Retention Rates (NTL) |
 |
Figure 6. Interaction Diagram. (Sept 19th session.) During this one hour of discussion, the eClassroom design afforded 331 real-time interactions with an average of 22 words per message. The median number of posts in the main room was 750 per three-hour class, with an average of 30 posts per student. |
 |
Figure 7. (Sept 19th session.) At the beginning of class, during the Inclusion period 67% of students’ messages went to the larger group indicating students were greeting and seeking inclusion more with the class as a whole. During the lecturette, students addressed their remarks equally to individuals and to the class as a whole, illustrating a democratic spread of interaction. After a period of ‘processing’ the lecturette in their small color-groups students appear to have returned to the classroom with new information to impart to the group in general, since 77% of their messages were addressed to the large community. |
 |
Participation is defined as the state of being related
to a larger whole. Participation is quantified as the number of
messages sent by participants containing a communication.
Figure 8. (Sept 19th session) The number of individuals participanting during a five minute segment. |
 |
Interaction is defined as a mutual and reciprocal
action or influence.
Figure 9. (Sept 19th session) Comparison of the participants’ and the instructor’s rate of interaction. |
 |
Attending is defined both as ‘being there’ and as
‘being attentive.’ Attentiveness implies an anticipatory interest that
leads to seeking additional information. ‘Attentiveness’ is quantified as the frequency with
which participants actively poll the server for the data generated since
their last request.
Figure 3. (Semester data) Scatter plot of ‘attentiveness’ and ‘participating.’ |
 |
Figure 4. (Each session is represented) Ratio of Attending to Participating (data
request : messages) for each participant, for each class session.
Each data point represents one 3-hour class:
The measurement of this attribute, suggests the eClassroom has sufficient flexibility in its design to allow this behavior to be expressed, and to provide the means to measure it. |
 |
“You are responsible
for your own learning. You will get out what you put into the course.”
Figure 6. (Semester data) Number of posted messages into the main classroom by individual and responses to the individual. The response rate is between 37-44%. The data for the instructor (not shown on the graph) was 892 messages posted with 624 directed responses for a 70% interactive response rate |
 |
Figure 7. (Semester data) Rate of interaction between individuals in the small groups. (The mean response rate is 87%. Facilitators' is75%) The 1:1 line represents a participant having the same number of directed messages sent as received. It is apparent from the breakout groups’ data that there is enough ‘room’ within the small groups for students to receive back more directed comments than they initiate. There is strong data and experiential indication that the eClassroom Laboratory functions the same as a F2F classroom on this measure. |
 |
The Greeting stage
Figure 8. (Semester data) Cumulative number of messages during the greeting stage for each class session. |
 |
The Gathering Stage These ‘gathering’
discussions centered on commonalities like names, pictures and technical
concerns and served as the ‘Transfer In’ activity for the first three
Learning Management Modules.
Figure 9a. "Attentiveness" during the first twenty minutes of the first three weeks |
 |
Starting each class with a ‘Transfer In’ story that
would then lead into the class content is an intervention directed at
eliminating the relatively low points...the time period between the peaks
has changed from ten minutes to five minutes, and the peaks themselves are
beginning to disappear.
Figure 9b. "Attentiveness" during the first twenty minutes of the middle three weeks. |
 |
The merging of interest and momentum in the
Gathering stage appears well managed. The periods of reduced
attention, or waiting are eliminated, as everyone seems primed to know
what is to follow.
Figure 9c. "Attentiveness" during the first twenty minutes of the last three weeks. |
 |
Figure 10. (Oct 10th session) Level of Interactions during the entire session in the Main Classroom |
 |
The Activity Stage
Figure 11. (Oct 3rd session) The Four Interactive Phases discovered in the Activity stage of the Learning Management Modules. Student to Student. Student to Group. Student to Facilitator |
 |
Table I. Relative rates of interaction found during the four phases of the Activity stage. |
 |
The Conclusion Stage
Figure 16. Weather reports from the students |
 |
Involvement in the small groups: Involvement means to engage as a participant, and to
commit emotionally to the group. Commitment to the whole increases the
value and the influence of the group for the individual. (According
to Pajek software (Batagelj and Mrvar, 1996), a hub is good if it points
to many good authorities, and it is a good authority, if many good hubs
point to it. In this analysis all participants had equal authority.)
In the blue group directed network, each individual in the group is represented by a circle, the size of which is proportional to the number of messages sent to others over the course of the semester. Note the "missing links." |
 |
In the green group directed network, each individual in the group is represented by a circle, the size of which is proportional to the number of messages sent to others over the course of the semester. Note the "missing links." |
 |
In the purple group directed network, each individual in the group is represented by a circle, the size of which is proportional to the number of messages sent to others over the course of the semester. Note the "missing links." |