|
First, here are the conclusions in regard to the question, "What is the nature of online interaction in this specific setting?" The students produced a
phenomenal amount of interaction among themselves. There was intelligent interaction concerning academic and professional issues. The interaction in general, was lively and enthusiastic, especially with any the topics
that were not course-related. Mostly, regardless of the topic, the students did talk openly with a balanced amount of enthusiasm, humor, manners, and social savvy. In regard to the course topics, the
students were mostly eloquent in responding to the various instructional activities, especially the ones that involved reflection, evaluation, and collaboration. They expressed themselves intelligently and offered
experienced opinions and ideas, as well as valuable information and knowledge. In most cases, the students were very frank, open, and supportive with each other. They openly expressed their feelings,
emotions, problems, and concerns. Concerning negative experiences, there were frequent expressions of dismay or confusion or other negative responses to instructional or technical problems. Quick to follow, were
displays of empathy and understanding from classmates and the instructor. In close proximity to these were corresponding responses of support, encouragement, advice, and solutions. Socially, the students
were highly active. All through both cohorts' conferences, the students constantly displayed social manners, humor, stories, and other basic social elements. This demonstrated a very observable social awareness. This
online experience very capably supported social interaction, which is an important part of facilitating constructivist learning environments, as suggested by Jonassen (1991) and Wertsch (1991). It appeared to be
something that the students needed and desired. In general, the online interaction conveyed a willingness and a need to communicate with their peers. The students appeared to utilize the Web-based computer
conferencing system well, and took advantage of its capabilities. They interacted vigorously, and maintained a balance between collegial interaction and social interaction. Lave and Wenger (1991) and Rogoff (1994) noted
that these types of interactions among practitioners are necessary to build an effective "online learning community". The second research question was as follows: "How does the interaction within this
context, a particular Web-based environment, support or not support a constructivist theoretical model of learning?" Many of the components of constructivist learning were evident in this online interaction. In
reference to the meaning-making model (Jonassen et al., 1995), there was evidence of the following: reflection, metacognition, articulation, and negotiation. Other constructivist behaviors were also present, such as
community-building (Rogoff, 1994), social interaction (Wertsch, 1991), and in general, dialogue among learners (Jonassen, 1991). A complex combination of reflection, metacognition, and articulation was
widespread, and these were highly integrated. When the students were articulating ideas and opinions, they were mostly expressing it through reflective thinking. Most of this was in the area designated for reflection,
"Down by the Lake." Reflection was also closely tied to metacognition. The students frequently reflected on their own learning and thinking, and readily shared their awareness of these and other aspects of
self-regulation, which are activities that are crucial to learning, according to Ridley et al. (1992) and Jonassen et al. (1995). Negotiation was a more difficult and complex component. Social negotiation
was fairly evident; but internal negotiation (with oneself) was perplexing, because it was not clearly distinguishable from self-reflection and articulation. It is a component that would not be expected to be outwardly
visible; although, it did appear that the students were engaged in a kind of internal negotiation that this researcher first termed, "philosophizing." This was intriguing in that the students were thinking through their
writing and visibly coming to grips with issues. As the course unfolded, it was eventually termed, "voiced internal negotiation." It probably could have also been categorized as self-reflection, but it had more of a
self-argument tone. In general terms, the interaction in many cases appeared to be as if the students were just "thinking aloud." Typically, the lines of distinction were very fine. In many cases a
response could be termed reflection, metacognition, "voiced internal negotiation," or articulation. Even if the distinctions were set aside, as far as this study is concerned, the students' interaction contained
evidence of activity and thinking that fit under a constructivist epistemology. To draw fine lines and give it proper terms, in many cases, was extremely difficult. There is no question that the students shared,
exchanged, and "voiced" the following among themselves in a social-dialogical context: ideas, opinions, evaluative comments, information, advice, support, and encouragement. Clearly, it was a community of
learners (Rogoff, 1994) and a community of practitioners (Lave & Wenger, 1991) engaged in meaningful interaction that covered all areas: personal, social, and professional. Overall, the students, as a community of
learners, were thinking, discussing, evaluating, philosophizing, reflecting, helping each other, and learning through written interaction that contained a very visible social element via the online medium. Even without
complex categorizing, that does seem to describe a constructivist based learning environment. The data definitely revealed that the students interacted with their peers about the following topics:
- Their own thinking: ideas, opinions, and thought processes.
- Their own learning: style, preferences, and learning processes.
- Their own personal, social, and professional stories and experiences, hopes and ideas, and reflective thinking.
- The value and quality of educational programs, services, and products; and, their own assignments and projects completed entirely online.
- Many issues of personal relevance that ranged from personal, to social, to professional.
- Many issues of community relevance: both as a community of learners (in this online experience together) and as a community of practitioners (k-12 educators in local public school systems).
- Issues concerning all aspects of instructional technology, and how these have affected, were affecting, and might affect them personally and professionally.
- What they were learning in this class and how they might use it in their own professional situation. Many ideas were exchanged in an effort to help each other make sense of educational issues of concern –
particularly related to technology in the schools, and even more specifically, instructional use of the Internet and the Web.
- Problems, concerns, emotions, feelings, and issues that had personal, social, and professional relevance concerning a wide range of topics – the dialogue had an atmosphere that was comfortable enough for
them to be fairly open in their expression. Clearly, throughout the course, this was an integral part of "community-building."
In summary, constructivism was very evident, not only through the interaction, as mentioned above, but also in the very nature of how the environment worked. The instructor had limited direct control, in
that anyone at anytime could post a response – the students basically "constructed" the course through their online interaction. The instructor did have guidelines and they did follow a syllabus, which had very specific
topics to be covered; but, the whole course was the online interaction, and the students created that. When taking a "step back" and observing the mounds of online interaction (whether observing it online via screen or
on paper, printed out) simply as one large compilation of academic "behavior," one can clearly see that this was a community of learners engaged in a highly participative environment. This reflects what Duffy and
Jonassen (1992) described as a constructivist learning environment. These students basically, just through online interaction – "at a distance" – built their own virtual classroom. The written word on a screen was the
only evidence of its existence. The instructor facilitated this, but the volume and quality of the interaction itself is the evidence that the students, through writing, experienced and created the "online classroom." The online interaction was like thinking, and more specifically, thinking aloud. The online environment was full of multiple perspectives. The students pondered, argued, critiqued, asked, helped, debated,
articulated, reflected, negotiated, exclaimed, joked, laughed, and even smiled online. As a group they did it with dialogue, with manners, with social awareness, and with an awareness of themselves going through this
experience. What has been described in this study reflects an environment that appears to have supported components of constructivist learning. |
