Learning through dialogue: online case studies in educational psychology.

Case studies are frequently used to prepare preservice teachers through reflection and analysis of classroom situations. Previous research suggests asynchronous online discussions provide more opportunity for reflection and analysis than face to face environments. Online case study discussions of two groups of preservice teacher education students, one more and one less successful, were analyzed through a case study approach with a cross-case comparison. Discussion transcripts were analyzed and triangulated with student self-report data. Members of both groups participated relatively equally and adopted a cooperative approach to the task. The more successful group exchanged more messages and responded to each other. Both groups focused on the task and content, but the more successful group also socialized and engaged in supportive discourse. The more successful group also supported their claims. Neither group challenged each other's initial ideas, nor did they ask many questions. As a result, the opportunity to create meaning together was not fully explored. Findings may be attributed in part to a difference in attitude toward the task itself and the idea of group work in general. Recommendations for the design of online case studies are discussed.

**********

Case studies provide preservice teachers a chance to explore theories of learning, motivation and assessment by analyzing and reflecting upon classroom situations. This study examines the integration of case study analyses into an applied educational psychology course for teacher education students. The case studies were designed to be completed online using Blackboard's[TM] asynchronous discussion forums to provide ample time for reflection. The discourse styles of two groups of students, one more successful and one less successful, completing a one-week case study analysis task were examined. The purpose of the study is to examine the use of computer-mediated communication technologies to support case study analysis by pre-service teachers. A greater understanding of the processes involved can help instructors design these tasks more effectively.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Case studies provide the opportunity for students to engage in a narrative way of knowing, by situating a narrative in specific context and encouraging reinterpretation and multiple representations. Case studies can be "a strategy for transforming more propositional forms of knowledge into narratives that motivate and educate" (Shulman, 1992, p. 17). Case studies are continuing to garner interest as a way to prepare preservice teachers for the real-world teaching environments (Carter, 1989; Pindiprolu, Peterson, Rule, & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2003; Sudzina, 1999a). Teacher educators are finding the case method of instruction useful for improving preservice teachers' problem-solving and decision-making skills (Snyder & McWilliam, 1999). Carter (1989) posited that use of cases can benefit novice teachers in particular by decreasing the odds that classroom solutions get "improperly reasoned" and by engaging new teachers in reflection and analysis.

Practitioners have acknowledged several obstacles to implementing case method instruction, including the significant time needed for discussion (Carter, 1989; Gideonse, 1999; Sudzina, 1999b), a lack of physical space conducive to such discussions (Carter; Gideonse), and the challenge of facilitating multiple discussions simultaneously (Gideonse). One way to overcome these obstacles is through the use of computer mediated communication (CMC) technologies.

An online environment can provide anytime and anyplace access to case materials. CMC tools such as asynchronous discussion boards and synchronous chat systems eliminate time and space constraints required by face-to-face case instruction (Pindiprolu et al., 2003; Smith, Smith, & Boone, 2000). Transcripts of conversations can be archived for later review by both teachers and students (Pindiprolu et al.). Asynchronous tools in particular offer greater opportunity for reflection on the case and on comments made by other students (Hough, Smithey, & Evertson, 2004; Meyer, 2003), though findings in this area have been mixed (DeWert, Babinski, & Jones, 2003; Hough et al., 2004; Stephens & Hartmann, 2004.)

There is much to explore regarding the effectiveness of online environments for learning. These environments may facilitate greater equality of participation because students do not have to compete with one another for the opportunity to speak. Those who may be hesitant to participate in a face-to-face environment may be more likely to participate in an online environment. Kitchen and McDougall (1998) found approximately equal participation levels among class members in an asynchronous discussion forum. However, these findings have not been supported by other studies (Bodzin & Park, 2000; Hillman, 1999; Poole, 2000), which have revealed asymmetrical participation patterns similar to that found in face to face environments, with a small group of students or the instructor dominating the discussion.

Self-facilitated small groups of students may adopt a variety of strategies to complete tasks using CMC tools. Cooperative approaches include individually tackling portions of the task and then combining the individual efforts into a final product, whereas a collaborative approach focuses on jointly completing the task through dialogue (Paulus, 2004). For example, Paulus found that a three-person graduate student group completing a task at a distance (using synchronous tools) adopted a cooperative rather than collaborative approach. She found that while most of the discussion was focused on the content of the assignment, nearly half was focused on social exchange, logistical matters and technology concerns. What is designed to be a collaborative project may be approached cooperatively by students (Kitchen & McDougall, 1998).

The discussions that students engage in about the case studies are integral to the learning process. Discussion methods of teaching have been found to be motivating for students and engage them actively in the learning process (Welty, 1989). Thus, in addition to examining how groups approach online case studies, it is important to look at how students are learning, or not learning, together through the dialogue they do engage in. This is particularly important since recent studies have found superficial levels of dialogue for learning in online discussions (Angeli, Valanides, & Bonk, 2003; Hew & Cheung, 2003a; Hew & Cheung, 2003b). Booth and Hulten (2003) created a taxonomy of necessary, though not sufficient, contributions to discussions which open a "dimension of variation" to afford an opportunity for learning. They identified four types of contributions to online discussions and identify some speech acts which represent these contributions in the context of their study. Participatory contributions are those which acknowledge the presence of others (similar to the idea of social presence, e.g., Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001) and include speech acts such as addressing group members by name, referring to another's post, acknowledging each other's contributions, and encouraging each other. Factual contributions are those which refer to the problem being discussed. Some factual speech acts include state, propose, elaborate, extend, explain, and ask. Reflective contributions consider the problem situation from a new angle by questioning what has been said through speech acts of agreeing, disagreeing, comparing, isolating a detail, or problematizing. Finally, learning contributions "appear as the culmination of two or more threads of parallel or even conflicting lines of argument, and continue with a clearer goal to the argument or with a concrete outcome such as a refined speculation" (p. 81). Learning contributions may include speech acts such as discerning, refining, and opening a dimension of variance. However, such acts are really only identifiable in context.

A better understanding of how groups of preservice teachers approach analyzing case studies in an online environment can help teacher educators structure such tasks more effectively to develop reflective thinking. The overarching research question for this study was: What differences exist in the discourse and interaction patterns of a more successful and less successful group of teacher education students participating in online case study analyses? Specific questions are:

1. How do preservice teachers approach the online case study analysis task?

2. What is the focus of their discussions?

3. What discourse strategies do they use?

4. What recommendations can be made for the design of such tasks?

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

All students in a required educational psychology course for upper level preservice teachers at a southeastern university were randomly assigned to groups of four to complete three case study analyses over the course of a 15 week semester. There were 31 students enrolled in this section of the course. The textbook used was Educational Psychology: Windows on Classrooms (Eggen & Kauchak, 2004), and course topics included learning theories, motivational theories, classroom management, and assessment. Course activities included reading, lecture, large and small group discussion, and three objective exams on the material. In addition, students wrote and revised three drafts of a personal theory of learning specific to their future teaching contexts. Finally, all students participated in small group case study analyses prior to each exam.

A variety of CMC tools were used for the case studies, as part of the purpose was to familiarize students with technology integration strategies. All groups participated in the first case study using Blackboard's asynchronous discussion forum and in the second case study using synchronous chat. Groups were allowed to choose whether to participate in the third case study with synchronous or asynchronous tools. Students stayed in the same groups throughout the semester. Groups had one week to discuss each case. At the end of the week the groups were to synthesize their discussion into a document and submit it to the instructor. Groups were self-facilitated and no roles were assigned; the instructor was available to answer questions. Technical support was available from a graduate assistant. Guidelines for participation explained the rationale for the activity, how it would be assessed and some suggestions for approaching the analysis (see Appendix for description of case study guidelines and assessment criteria). The final synthesis document was graded by the instructor based on its overall quality. At the end of each case study students wrote reflections on their participation.

Two groups were chosen for analysis: the group that was the most successful and the group that was least successful in completing the first case study analysis. The first case study experience was the focus of this study in order to first explore the use of the asynchronous tools. The most successful group, Group M, and the least successful group, Group L, were identified based on the grade assigned by the instructor on the case study analysis. As outlined in the Appendix, groups were evaluated based on (a) the quality of their final synthesis document, and (b) the quality of individual contributions to the discussion. Table 1 outlines the two groups.

METHOD

A case study approach (Stake, 1995) was used for the analysis, with a cross-case study analysis comparing the two groups. Each group's process is described in detail to capture as completely as possible how they approached the task. The entire transcript of the groups' asynchronous discussions were downloaded into word processing documents at the end of the semester. A computer-mediated discourse analysis approach (Herring, 2004; Paulus, 2004) was adopted for analysis of the discussion transcripts. Analysis occurred on several levels; this is described next.

Participation and Overall Group Approach to the Task

First, the number of messages posted by each participant was calculated. How the participants interacted during the week was examined by mapping the number of messages posted each day and looking at how the participants organized the threads. Finally, the interactivity of the group was examined by comparing the number of initial posts with the number of responses.

Focus of the Discussions

Next, each message was unitized according to its function in the conversation ("functional move"). Unitizing messages into functional moves is a necessary step because individual posts often contain more than one function. Functional moves, a variation of a speech act, were coded as to whether they focused on (a) the content of the case study analysis; (b) social exchanges; or (c) administrative/logistical concerns (Paulus, 2004). Table 2 illustrates an example of one message that was unitized into three separate functional moves.

Discourse Strategies and Contributions to the Learning Process

To examine how students learned the educational psychology content, we continued our analysis only with the content-related discourse. The four types of contributions (and their related functional moves) identified by Booth and Hulten (2003) were used as a starting point for analysis of only the content-related moves. The researchers remained open to noticing new functional moves used by the participants in this study, even if not identified by Booth and Hulten. The coding categories are presented in detail in the findings section.

Participant reflections on the case study experience were used to triangulate findings from each phase of the analysis. Reflections were read for themes related to the four research questions. Findings from the transcript analysis were compared with findings from the individual reflection analysis. Two researchers, the coauthors, analyzed the entire data set to lend trustworthiness to the analysis (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982; Lincoln & Guba, 1986). One researcher was the course instructor and the second was a doctoral level research assistant. Multiple sources of data and multiple analysis methods also lend trustworthiness to the analysis.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Participation and Overall Group Approach to the Task

Thirty (30) messages were exchanged by Group M, the successful group. The average number of messages posted per student was 7.5. The 30 messages were unitized into 41 functional moves, with each student posting on average 10.25 functional moves (Table 3).

The case study task ran from Tuesday to Tuesday. Most of Group M's discussion occurred on the first Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. No posts were made over the weekend. Table 4.

Group M organized their posts into seven threads, with seven initial posts and 23 responses. Threads were no more than two responses deep:

Question #4      Robert  Thu Feb 5 2004 4:17 pm
Re: Question #4  Jean    Thu Feb 5 2004 4:21 pm
Re: Question #4  Robert  Thu Feb 5 2004 4:32 pm

Each student initiated a separate thread to respond to one of the four questions: Jean took question 1, Ann question 2, Mary question 3, and Robert question 4. Others then responded to the initial posts. This strategy was not discussed in the forum itself, so the students could have decided on this strategy while talking together offline or by e-mail.

One thread was purely social, called: OUR GROUP ROCKS!! This was started by Mary on the third day of the discussion to encourage the group: "Just a little boost cause I think we are doing awesome with our group!!! GO Team US!!!" Another thread was related to discussions of logistics/administrative matters. It was started by Jean: "Does anyone else have anything they would like to say or add to what has been said about question one? If so, please do so by Friday night so I can work on the review. Thanks." The final thread on Monday organized the final summary to be submitted to the instructor. Each student summarized the discussion of their question, and each summary was posted separately for the instructor.

In contrast, Group L, the less successful group, exchanged only eight messages, and there was only one functional move per message (Table 5). The average number of posts per student was two. Eddie contributed slightly more than others in the group, including the initial and final posts. Deborah posted only once, on Thursday, when she agreed with what Eddie and Julie had posted.

Three posts were made on the first day of the case study, but there was no more than one post per day for the remainder of the week (see Table 6).

The eight posts were organized into seven threads; thus only one message was a reply to an initial post. This reveals a less interactive discussion than in Group M. Each student began their own thread, in which they responded to all four questions. One post, similar to one in Group M, was an attempt to wrap things up. However, this was posted on only the second day of the week, by Eddie:

  I think we pretty much answered the four questions. We have already
  identified several aspects of several learning theories, talked about
  how effective Patty's lesson was, what she could have done to improve
  her lesson, and compared Patty's lesson to Laura's. Is there anything
  else anyone sees in the case study and would like to add?

No one responded to the message, perhaps realizing there was a lot of time left. Angie posted on Thursday, asking a question of the group, but no one responded. On Sunday Angie suggested they go ahead and wrap-up:

  Okay, we should probably start wrapping this case study up ... don't
  you all think? We need to have someone write all of our ideas so we
  can turn it in on Tuesday. Does anyone want to do it? Also, are there
  any more key points that you think we are missing? Do you think we
  should meet and try and put all of this together to turn in? Let me
  know what you all think.

Angie received no response. Finally, Eddie went ahead and posted the summary on the last day.

In terms of how the groups approached the task, all of the students participated to some extent. Group M posted both more messages and more functional moves than Group L and, more importantly, group members responded to each other's posts. Group L was ready to finish the task after only a couple of days, whereas Group M went into more depth. Group M seemed to have more of a strategy than Group L, in that each member had a specific task (to initially respond to one of the questions). While this has been considered a more cooperative than collaborative approach (Paulus, 2004), the level of interactivity in the Group M discussion lends a more collaborative element.

Analysis of the student reflections provides some insight about the differences in approaches. The group members differed in their beliefs about the value of working in groups. Not surprisingly, not all students believe group work is inherently worth their time. Robert in Group M enjoyed the experience of his particular group because, "As long as you are a member of a group that is truly interested in discussing and sharing their thoughts with one another then the learning experience is extremely rewarding." Robert went on to emphasize the need for each member to be committed: "If each member of the group is truly involved in the online case study discussions it is not only facilitating one's learning, but is enjoyable as well." In contrast, Eddie in Group L confessed that:

  I am not a fan of group projects. It has been my experience that often
  time's group projects do not best facilitate learning. In group
  learning theory the strong students reinforce and aid the weak
  students. However, my experience has been different, in reality the
  strong students complete the assignment and the weak students are not
  pushed to learn the material. The group almost becomes a crutch for
  some group members.

Mary in Group M expressed a similar view to Eddie, feeling that "I could have just as easily done the activity on my own and got the same out of it." Perhaps viewing himself as the "strong student" he mentioned, Eddie posted first to the discussion and also took it upon himself to synthesize the final document for his group, without explicit agreement from the group.

Ann, Jean, and Robert in Group M all believed that the case study helped with the learning of the theories. Jean particularly appreciated the online nature of the discussions, "(Using the discussion board is) good because you can say what you really think, you have time to think before you 'speak' and you are able to learn from others' perceptions." In Group L, however, only Angie felt that the experience helped her learning: "By doing the study, you not only got the chance to see what others thought, but by talking in a group, understanding the concepts and ideas was easy because they were being repeated throughout the group." Unlike her group members, Angie perhaps did ascribe to the notion that talking together could be beneficial.

Focus of the Discussion

Five of the eight functional moves posted by Group L were related to the content and three were related to logistics. None were social. This contrasts with Group M, who exchanged 20 moves related to the content, but nine related to social exchange and 12 related to administrative issues (Table 6).

Group L, then, remained completely on task with no social interaction whatsoever. While this may be seen as positive, other research has suggested that social interaction can better facilitate group process, particularly in online environments (Rourke et al., 2001). Social exchanges can help build trust and community in the group.

Discourse Strategies and Contributions to the Learning Process

The 25 content moves were then further unitized and coded according to the Booth and Hulten (2003) framework, resulting in a total of 78 coded units (Tables 7-10).

Encourage was the most common functional move in Group M, but this move was not present at all in Group L. Mitigate, while not part of the original Booth and Hulten (2003) taxonomy, was a way of implicitly inviting others to contribute. There were some invite moves, but not many. In both groups, participatory contributions were roughly one third of all content-related contributions.

Factual contributions refer to the problem being discussed. In both groups these types of contributions were just under half of the content-related contributions. Claims were the most common move in both groups. There were some moves to extend and restate what had been said. However, only Group M supported their claims. Neither groups clarified these factual statements by asking or answering questions.

Reflective contributions are important in moving the conversation toward learning. Both groups had 25% or less of their contributions coded as reflective. In both groups agreeing was most prevalent. Disagreeing only occurred once in each group. In Group M, Mary made a claim about the effectiveness of the lesson: "Without analyzing it too much right now it seems that her lesson was pretty effective cause the students began to understand how to find the area of irregular plane figures." Jean then disagrees to an extent with Mary:

  I think one way the teacher could have been more effective is by
  starting out with a smaller area and then work to something larger. I
  feel as though she was throwing a lot at them at once. By starting out
  smaller it would be a way for the child to have a little more
  encouragement along the way.

This opens an opportunity for a learning contribution, but there was no response to this disagreement.

Only one instance of a possible challenge occurred. In Group L, Eddie stated: "The lesson plan as is an effective plan, and I can find little room for improvement." Julie then restated Eddie's claim: "Her lesson was very effective. I don't know how she could have made it different." Julie, however, then disagrees and asks a challenge-type question:

  ... I think one weakness of the assignment Patty gave the children is
  that she never finished the original problem. At the beginning of the
  lesson, she asked the students how much they thought the land of the
  school cost. Once the children found out the number of acres she had
  them work on different problems. Although this assignment ultimately
  taught the children how to find the area of irregular planes, she
  didn't have them think back to the original question and applying the
  area to a "real world" scenario. (disagree)

  Any thoughts about this? (challenge)

However, the challenge is not taken up by the group.

Booth and Hulten (2003) emphasized that learning contributions are recognizable only in context. We found no resolution of conflicting ideas, but there were three explicit statements of learning in Group M. The first was when Jean posted the last message in a thread, responding to three other posts:

  I love what you said about being able to build upon the knowledge the
  child already has. (encourage) I believe Mary was touching on the same
  sort-of thing. (acknowledge) In fact, I had not even looked at it from
  that stand point (learning) and no I do not think it is far fetched.
  (agree)

Her statement "I had not even looked at it from that stand point" is an explicit statement of something being seen in a new way. In another thread, Mary claims:

  In the third paragraph it says the teacher began her class by saying
  "I just read an article that says the cost of educating people like
  all of you is skyrocketing." Now for some reason I just did not like
  the way she referred to her class as "people like all of you." It
  seems a little, I don't know, rude or something.

Robert responded to Mary, "the 'people like you' remark is somewhat disturbing. (acknowledge) I didn't catch it the first time. (learn)" The final example is Robert's response to Jean:

  Those are really good points Jean. (encourage) I didn't even really
  consider that. (learn) It does seem that the students were able to get
  the problem solved quicker than they were in Patty's class. (extend)

Each learning contribution is an explicit statement of a change in viewpoint.

Analysis of the student reflections in light of the transcript analysis revealed another theme, which could account for the limited number of reflective and learning contributions. There was a contrast between students who believed their job was to find the "one right answer" to the case study and those who felt the purpose of the case study was to share diverse perspectives. Julie in Group L felt that there was no opportunity to discuss ideas because Eddie's first post answered all the questions. This reflects a belief in one "correct" answer which, in Julie's opinion, Eddie found:

  The only thing that I think hindered the discussion among my group was
  the fact that the first posting on the discussion board basically
  answered all of the questions. This did not really leave the rest of
  us with much to discuss. Fortunately all of his answers were correct
  and were what I had come up with as well, but I think putting it out
  there from the beginning caused my group to not discuss the meaning of
  the case study.

In contrast, Jean in Group M expressed her belief in the value of multiple perspectives evident through discussion:

  My other group members on some of the questions saw some things I did
  not see and they allowed me to look at the situation differently. It
  is sometimes hard to see the bigger picture of get an unbiased opinion
  on something when you are the only one making a contribution.

Student beliefs about the value of multiple perspectives likely impacted the way the groups talked together.

LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION

Only two groups were compared and only the first case study of the semester was analyzed. Thus, this study only lays the groundwork for future studies in this area. In subsequent case studies during the semester the groups used synchronous chat tools. Future work will compare how synchronous and asynchronous case study discourse differ in this particular context. In case study research such as this, findings are generalizable only in the naturalistic sense (Stake, 1995), and we sought to provide enough details of the context of this learning environment to enable comparisons to similar environments.

The findings reveal that members of both groups participated relatively equally and adopted a cooperative approach to the task. The successful group exchanged more messages overall and also responded more frequently to initial posts. Both groups focused on the task and content, but the more successful group engaged in some socializing and engaged in more supportive discourse. The successful group also supported claims made. Neither group challenged the ideas of their group members to any meaningful extent, nor did they ask many questions of each other; as a result, the opportunity to create meaning together was not explored. To encourage the groups to explore this opportunity more fully, the case study task was redesigned for the subsequent semester based on the following recommendations.

Building Trust

Many students have had negative group work experiences in their lives. As a result they may not inherently trust their peers to do their best work (Jetton, 2003-2004). They may have experienced social loafing or other conflicts. Hough et al. (2004) pointed out students who do not know each other well may not be comfortable sharing their ideas with one another. Thus building trust is an important first step. This can be difficult online, so icebreakers or initial face to face work may be necessary. Also, keeping the same groups throughout the semester enables the groups to develop norms for working together effectively. Providing support on how to organize their discussions may also be helpful.

Design of the Case Study Task

It may be, as Ferdig and Roehler (2003-2004) and Jetton (2003-2004) found, that students who see each other on a regular basis in face-to-face class meetings or in other settings may not immediately view online discussions as adding value to their experience. Some students may feel that case discussions could have been more productive in the face-to-face classroom and were therefore resistant to online discussion. It is important, then, to explicitly provide a rationale not only for the case study task, but for the communication mode being used.

Other elements of the task design may also impact the outcomes. In this study, there were four guiding questions presented at the end of the case. Not surprisingly, one group chose to assign questions to each student. While in this case the students did respond to each other's initial ideas, sometimes this does not happen. Thus in the second iteration of this assignment, the guiding questions were left more open-ended. Jetton (2003-2004) and Slavit (2002) also stressed the importance of designing tasks in ways that encourage meaningful interaction. Additionally, Beiesenbach-Lucas (2004) and Jetton (2003-2004) recommended that students have input into the design of the discussion, including setting standards for quality interactions.

Epistemological Stance

Working with others on ill-structured tasks requires an epistemological stance that preservice teachers may or may not have. It is important for the instructor to explain the theory and purpose behind the task itself. The idea of a discussion is to encourage contributions that aren't necessarily geared toward identifying the "right answer" (Welty, 1989). Rather, the main purpose of case study analysis is to challenge any single interpretation or representation of cases, when this does not happen, the case study approach will not work (Shulman, 1992). As Welty (1989) pointed out, it is important to get students over the mindset that there is one right answer. Dialogue is a way of engaging others to draw out these different perspectives. Various discourse strategies can be used to encourage this type of dialogue.

Dialogue for Learning

While all students participated and groups focused on the content of the task, more work is needed in fostering dialogue for learning. Students often do not realize that the dialogue process is in itself the main purpose for the case study analysis. The most frequent types of contributions in both groups were factual, followed by participatory, then reflective and, finally, learning. We would hope to see more of contributions of the reflective and learning type. Students need guidance in how to ask questions, respond, invite others into the conversation, provide support for claims, and challenge initial ideas. Neither of the groups really developed beyond their initial ideas. Hew and Cheung (2003b) also found the need to instruct preservice teachers on how to support their claims. Makitalo, Hakkinen, Leinonen, and Jarvela (2002) suggested that the initial agreement between participants may have kept discussions from moving to a deeper level since agreement may signal the end to a conversation. They also surmised that participants might have been content with mutual agreement and harmony and did not want to lose momentum by bringing up new points. Yet, they also found that students gave more supportive feedback at deeper levels of discussion, meaning that supportive feedback may encourage participants to discuss issues more deeply. There is some evidence that a facilitator may be needed to take groups to the next level of active, indepth discussion (Angeli et al., 2003; Ferdig & Roehler, 2003-2004; Hew & Cheung, 2003a; Hew & Cheung, 2003b; King, 2002; Salmon, 2003).

While case studies, CMC and group tasks all hold promise for encouraging learning in context through reflection and analysis, they also present challenges. An epistemological shift may be necessary for the preservice teachers--one that acknowledges that multiple perspectives and that it is through dialogue that these perspectives can be explored. CMC has the potential to provide a place for such dialogue by small groups of students, but only through careful design of the task, building trust and teaching effective dialogic strategies for moving from factual contributions to those that are reflective, and, ultimately, about learning.

References

Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Bonk, C.J. (2003). Communication in a web-based conferencing system: The quality of computer-mediated interactions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 31-43.

Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2004). Asynchronous web discussions in teacher training courses: Promoting collaborative learning--or not? Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 12(2), 155-170.

Bodzin, A., & Park, J. (2000). Factors that influence asynchronous discourse with preservice teachers on a public, web-based forum. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 16(4), 22-30.

Booth, S., & Hulten, M. (2003). Opening dimensions of variation: An empirical study of learning in a web-based discussion. Instructional Science, 31, 65-86.

Carter, K. (1989). Using cases to frame mentor-novice conversations about teaching. Theory into Practice, 27(3), 214-222.

DeWert, M.H., Babinski, L.M., & Jones, B.D. (2003). Safe passages: Providing online support to beginning teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 311-320.

Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2004). Educational psychology: Windows on Classrooms (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Ferdig, R.E., & Roehler, L.R. (Winter 2003-2004). Student uptake in electronic discussions: Examining online discourse in literacy preservice classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 119-136.

Gideonse, H. (1999). What is a case? What distinguishes case learning? In M. R. Sudzina (Ed.), Case applications for teacher education: Cases of teaching and learning in the content areas (pp. 1-8). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Herring, S.C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S.A. Barab, R. Kling, & J.H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hew, K.F., & Cheung, W.S. (2003a). Evaluating the participation and quality of thinking of pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion environment: Part 1. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(3), 247-262.

Hew, K.F., & Cheung, W.S. (2003b). Evaluating the participation and quality of thinking of pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion environment: Part II. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(4), 355-366.

Hillman, D. C. A. (1999). A new method for analyzing patterns of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(12), 37-49.

Hough, B., Smithey, M., & Evertson, C. (2004). Using computer-mediated communication to create virtual communities of practice for intern teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 361-386.

Jetton, T.L. (Winter 2003-2004). Using computer-mediated discussion to facilitate preservice teachers' understanding of literacy assessment and instruction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 171-191.

King, K.P. (2002). Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 231-246.

Kitchen, D., & McDougall, D. (1998). Collaborative learning on the Internet. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 27(3), 245-258.

LeCompte, M., & Goetz, J.P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 31-60.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E.G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and Authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In D.D. Williams (Ed.), Naturalistic evaluation (pp.73-83). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Makitalo, K., Hakkinen, P., Leinonen, P., & Jarvela, S. (2002). Mechanisms of common ground in case-based web discussions in teacher education. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 247-265.

Meyer, K.A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65. Retrieved on April 24, 2006, from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v7n3/pdf/v7n3_meyer.pdf

Paulus, T. (2004). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing small group interactions in educational environments. In T. Roberts (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Pindiprolu, S.S., Peterson, S.M.P., Rule, S., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2003). Using web-mediated experiential case-based instruction to teach functional behavioral assessment skills. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(1), 1-16.

Poole, D.M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: A case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 162-177.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51-70.

Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Shulman, L.S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1-32). New York: Teachers College Press.

Slavit, D. (2002). Expanding classroom discussion with an online medium. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 407-422.

Smith, S.B., Smith, S.J., & Boone, R. (2000). Increasing access to teacher preparation: The effectiveness of traditional instructional methods in an online learning environment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(2), 37-46.

Snyder, P., & McWilliam, P.J. (1999). Evaluating the efficacy of case method instruction: Findings from preservice training in family-centered care. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 114-125.

Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stephens, A.C., & Hartmann, C.E. (2004). A successful professional development project's failure to promote online discussion about teaching mathematics with technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 57-73.

Sudzina, M.R. (Ed.). (1999a). Case applications for teacher education: Cases of teaching and learning in the content areas. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sudzina, M.R. (1999b). Guidelines for teaching with cases. What is a Case? In M. R. Sudzina (Ed.). Case applications for teacher education: Cases of teaching and learning in the content areas (pp. 9-20). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Welty, W. (1989). Discussion method teaching. Change, July/August, 40-49.

Author Note

Support for this study was provided in part by a Project IMPACT Technology Grant made available through our College.

APPENDIX: CASE STUDY QUESTIONS AND GUIDELINES

Case study analysis guiding questions

Provide evidence taken directly from the case study as you participate in the discussion. Also draw upon the textbook to support your ideas.

* Concepts from several learning theories that we have studied this semester have been applied to or are evident in this lesson. Analyze where you see evidence of these theories.

* How effective was Patty's lesson for improving students' problem solving abilities?

* What could she have done to make her lesson more effective?

* Laura Hunter, in the opening case in Chapter 9 of the text had goals similar to Patty's. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of Laura's strategies compared to Patty's.

How to participate in the case studies

This semester you will be analyzing three case studies to put into your portfolio for this class. Each case study discussion will last for one week and is worth 5 points of your overall grade. The first case study officially begins on Tuesday, February 3.

During this week you have the opportunity to engage in an in-depth discussion (in Blackboard) about the case with several other students in your course. The purpose of the case study analysis is to give you a chance to think about the learning theories in a new way as we wrap up each of the three units and prepare for the exam. This type of activity lets you be an active part of the learning process and gives you a chance to elaborate your understanding (you should recognize the importance of this based on cognitive learning theories!) As we'll see later this semester, interacting with others and discussing ideas with other people can be very beneficial for learning.

An added benefit of this activity is to give you experience with how computer-mediated communication (e-mail, chat, Web discussion boards) can be used for learning and teaching.

For those of you who will take the Praxis exam, case study analysis is a component of the Praxis. A discussion of this begins on page 25 of your textbook.

Preparing

First, be sure that you have updated your personal information and Web page in the Tools section. The graduate assistant will show you how to do this in class on Thursday.

Also review all the readings and your notes from class. Read the case itself and think about it in terms of the learning theories. The case study gives you the opportunity to connect our readings with real-life classroom examples (you are building new schema!)

Finding your group

Within Blackboard click on the Group Pages button on the left. You should see your name attached to a group.

Take a moment to look at your group members' home pages and photos so you can visualize who you are talking with.

To enter the discussion follow the Group Discussion Board link and enter the Case Study #1 forum. The group discussion board should be used for all communication related to the analysis of the case.

Participation and timeline

Regular communication with your team is critical to your success. Your group has one week to discuss the case study and write an analysis. The guiding questions can help you with this. It is very important that you check the discussion forums at least once a day during the week of the case study.

You should post your own thoughts about the case study and also respond to your classmate's postings. The idea is to have an active discussion. Your first post should take place by midnight on Tuesday February 3 and final postings should be posted by midnight on Tuesday, February 10.

Assessment

By the end of the week (that is, Tuesday, February 10) your group should have wrapped up your discussion and posted a synthesis. You do not need to turn in anything separate to the instructor, but some sort of final synthesis should be posted in your discussion area. It is your group's choice on how to finalize your analysis for assessment purposes.

Your score will be based on the quality of your final synthesis and also on individual contributions to the group effort:

Individual scores (2.5)

* Posted on time

* Responded to others

* Personal info/photo uploaded to Blackboard

* Quality of contributions

Overall quality of group analysis (2.5)

* Thorough analysis

* Supported by readings and class discussions

All your group's communication should be within Blackboard so that the instructor and graduate assistant can review it and help if needed. A quality contribution is a post that goes beyond simply agreeing with what others have said. Restating main points that have been made can be helpful but is not a substantial contribution. A quality contribution is a thoughtful, specific post that is supported by the textbook or class discussions. A quality contribution includes asking others for additional details about what they have posted, presenting a different or opposing view to consider, or integrating diverse opinions.

Remember that the goal is for you to have an interactive discussion about the case.

Role of the instructor/facilitator

While the instructors will not always be directly involved in your conversations, we will be reading along with the group and can answer questions if you have any. Our role is to support and guide your learning.

TRENA M. PAULUS AND GINA ROBERTS

University of Tennessee

Knoxville, TN USA

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Table 1 Participants

Group M (more successful)  Group L (less successful)

Ann                        Angie
Jean                       Julie
Mary                       Deborah
Robert                     Eddie

Table 2 Unitized Message into Functional Moves

Message from Mary in Group M               Functional Move

OK. I read the case study but I haven't    #1. Administrative/logistics
thought of any different ways the
teacher could have made the lesson more
effective yet. I just wanted to let you
guys know that I was working on it so
you didn't think I a slacker. If any one
wants to comment on my question feel free
to, I don't mind.
Without analyzing it too much right now    #2. Content
it seems that her lesson was pretty
effective cause the students began to
understand how to find the areas of
irregular plane figures.
I'll get back to this question before      #3. Administrative/logistics
our summary is due though.

Table 3 Group M: Messages and Functional Moves

Participant  Messages  Percentage  Functional moves  Percentage

Jean          8         27%         9                 22%
Mary          8         27%        10                 24%
Ann           5         17%         8                 20%
Robert        9         30%        14                 34%
             30        100         41                100

Table 4 Group M: Timeline of Postings

Mon -- 2/2     0
Tues -- 2/3    6
Wed -- 2/4     6
Thurs -- 2/5  13
Fri -- 2/6     2
Sat -- 2/7     0
Sun -- 2/8     0
Mon -- 2/9     3
Tues -- 2/10   0

Table 5 Group L: Messages and Functional Moves

Participant  Messages and functional moves  Percentage

Eddie        3                               38%
Angie        2                               25%
Julie        2                               25%
Deborah      1                               12%
Total        8                              100

Table 6 Group L: Timeline of Postings

Mon -- 2/2    0
Tues -- 2/3   3
Wed -- 2/4    1
Thurs -- 2/5  1
Fri -- 2/6    0
Sat -- 2/7    0
Sun -- 2/8    1
Mon -- 2/9    1
Tues -- 2/10  1

Table 6 Content, Social, and Administrative Moves

         Content   Social   Administrative/logistics  Total

Group M  20 (49%)  9 (22%)  12 (29%)                  41 (100%)
Group L   5 (62%)  0 (0%)    3 (38%)                   8 (100%)
Total    25        9        15                        49 (100%)

Table 7 Participatory Contributions

Category     Description                      Example

Acknowledge  General acknowledgement of       If the teacher had
             statement or contribution made   reviewed how to compute
             by others, making a connection   the area of rectangles and
             to a previous post explicitly    triangles, as you
                                              mentioned, then she could
                                              haveO I
Mitigate     Suggest his/her idea is not the  il could be way offi
             only correct one
Encourage    General encouraging statements   il think these are all
             statements n not necessarily     really good ideals. i
             related to a specific statement
             about the case
             Evaluative remarks given in a
             positive or supportive manner
Invite       A general request for input/     i What do you guys think?
             feedback from others             I
Total

Category     Group M                   Group L                  Total

Acknowledge   4                        3                         7
Mitigate      5                        2                         7
Encourage     5                        0                         5
Invite        3                        1                         4
Total        17 (29% of total content  6 (30% of total content  23
             related contributions     related contributions)

Table 8 Factual Contributions

Category  Description             Example

Claim     Make a new claim,       I think Laura's strategies were much
          statement of belief,    like Patty's in that they both wanted
          express new idea; an    to present a problem to their students
          initial contribution    that they could relate to.
Support   Support claim with      I also noticed that this case study
          experience, examples,   used concepts from some of the stuff
          reference to case       we talked about in class today (2/3).
          itself, reference to    Like the use of group work to
          class lecture,          understand things.
          textbook, expert etc.
Extend    Extend or add to        Dissecting it a bit further, we can
          anotheris idea          bring more cognitive learning theory
                                  into it as well.i
Restate   Restate without         Her lesson was very effective. I don't
          acknowledgement or      know how she could have made it
          explicit connection to  different
          the prior post
Ask       Ask questions of each   Not found
          other; e.g. specific
          request for
          clarification
Answer    Answer question; e.g.   Not found
          specific questions for
          clarification
Total

Category  Group M         Group L         Total

Claim     15              5               20
Support    7              0                7
Extend     4              2                6
Restate    1              2                3
Ask        0              0                0
Answer     0              0                0
Total     27 (47% of      9 (45% of       36
          total content   total content
          related         related
          contributions)  contributions)

Table 9 Reflective Contributions

Category    Description                Example

Agree       Agreement with another's   "I agree that she used
            specific statement about   metacognition to figure out the
            the case                   area of the triangle."
Disagree    Disagree and offer an      "I would have to disagree that
            explanation/alternative;   assigning the problem solving
            identify an                task would have.... I feel that
            inconsistency,             the students gained ..."
            problematize
Challenge   Asking questions related   ... Any thoughts about this?
            to the content beyond
            simple clarification (may
            follow a disagreement)
Respond to  Responding to questions    Not found
challenge   related to the content
Total

Category    Group M                   Group L                  Total

Agree       10                        3                        13
Disagree     1                        1                         2
Challenge    0                        1                         1
Respond to   0                        0                         0
challenge
Total       11 (19% of total content  5 (25% of total content  16
            related contributions)    related contributions)

Table 10 Learning Contributions

Category  Description           Example

Learn     See something new or  Those are really good points Jean. I
          in a new way          didn't even really consider that.
Resolve   Reach agreement or    Not found
          synthesis
Total

Category  Group M                 Group L  Total

Learn     3                       0        3
Resolve   0                       0        0
Total     3 (5% of total content  0 (0%)   3
          related contributions)