Mia Lobel Concordia Presentation 4-16-02

handout

Agenda

 

Intros

History of how and when

The idea and the journey

The class

The eClass

The pedagogy

Demonstrate the LearningByDoing eClassroom© features

Demonstrate the LearningByDoing eClassroom© process

Present data results

Present theoretical findings

Parallel communication

The perceived anonymity of self

Personal zone

General discussion

(The Figures below are from paper submissions and publication)

Three generic types of data were collected in the eClassroom log files for later analysis: text, time-stamped text, and time-stamped data requests. The following analysis tools were used: 

  1. ATLAS.ti version 4.2 a computer aided text interpretation and theory building software
  2. Microsoft Excel 2000 for regression analysis, database organization, and graph making
  3. UCINET 5.0 Version 1.00 for network analysis
  4. Pajek, a freeware software program for large network analysis

 

p1f1-retention-rate.gif (9063 bytes) Figure 1. Learning Retention Rates (NTL)
InteractionDiagram.gif (18844 bytes) 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. 
ID-unwrapped-10-10.gif (19854 bytes) Interaction Diagram unwrapped along the time axis for one hour of the October 10th session
ID-cree.gif (60761 bytes) Interaction Diagram unwrapped long the time axis for one hour of the 298ZG session on perception
student-messages-to-group-individuals.gif (9072 bytes) 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.  
Individuals-Interacting-in-5m-period.gif (9148 bytes) 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-Rate.gif (6643 bytes) Interaction is defined as a mutual and reciprocal action or influence.

Figure 9. (Sept 19th session) Comparison of the participants and the instructors rate of interaction.

attending-participating-correlation.gif (4169 bytes) 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.gif (6791 bytes) 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:
  1. Students with a tendency to attend more than participate (3,4,7)
  2. Students who are very consistent in this attribute (5,9, 11)
  3. Students with a tendency to participate more than attend (8,10,14,19)

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.

Figure-6.gif (5761 bytes) “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.gif (5024 bytes) 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. 
Figure-8.gif (6462 bytes) The Greeting stage 

Figure 8. (Semester data) Cumulative number of messages during the greeting stage for each class session.  

Figure-9a.gif (6701 bytes) 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

Figure-9b.gif (6932 bytes) 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.

Figure-9c.gif (6196 bytes) 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.gif (10023 bytes) Figure 10. (Oct 10th session) Level of Interactions during the entire session in the Main Classroom
Figure-11.gif (30522 bytes) 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.gif (20945 bytes) Table I. Relative rates of interaction found during the four phases of the Activity stage.
Figure-16.gif (21508 bytes) The Conclusion Stage

Figure 16. Weather reports from the students

blue-8h-1a.gif (8292 bytes) 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."

green-10h-1a.gif (10630 bytes) 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."
purple-8h-1a.gif (9400 bytes) 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."