Approaches to case analyses in synchronous and asynchronous environments

Abstract

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools can be used to integrate timeintensive tasks, such as case study analyses, more easily into formal learning environments. How students talk together online in CMC environments is an area that has not yet been thoroughly investigated. This paper extends findings from a previous study by comparing two groups of preservice teachers analyzing cases in a synchronous and asynchronous environment. A case study and computer-mediated discourse analysis approach was taken to make sense of the discussion transcripts and student reflections. Booth and Hulten's (2003) taxonomy of learning contributions is used as an analysis framework. Students made more participatory moves to establish presence in asynchronous environments and more interactive moves in synchronous environments. Reflective contributions were made in both environments, with few learning moves made in either. Students participated asymmetrically in both modes. The interplay between types of contributions, affordances of each mode, student preferences and student epistemological beliefs is explored, with implications for the design and analysis of case discussion tasks in CMC environments.

Establishing Guidelines for Executing and Reporting Internet Intervention Research

“…The facet pertains to all communication channels included in the program, because degree of communication synchronicity might be a principal research (Paulus & Phipps, 2008) or intervention VOL 40, NO 2, 2011 Guidelines for Internet intervention research 89 (Cress, Kimmerle, & Hesse, 2009;Pullen & Snow, 2007) …”

Facilitating the development of pre-service teachers as reflective learners: a Malaysian experience

“…The result of the interaction and socialisation is then developed into a form of assistance or scaffolding where online forum and weblog users can work together and help each other learn. In teacher education, both online forums (Angeli, Valanides and Bonk 2003;Im and Lee 2004;Levin, He and Robbins 2006;Paulus and Phipps 2008;Whipp 2003) and weblogs (Makinster et al 2006;Ray and Coulter 2008;Shoffner 2007;Xie, Ke and Sharma 2008;Vethamani 2006;Yang 2009) have been used to facilitate reflective learning. All the studies cited on the use of online forums and weblogs as tools for reflection have shown positive findings despite using different assessment tools.…”

Dispelling e-myths and pre-empting disappointment: Exploring incongruities between instructors intentions and reality in asynchronous online discussions

“…They also suggest that a mixed-methods approach be followed to achieve a better understanding of AODs (Gasiewski et al 2012, 234). For this reason, and using computer-mediated discourse analysis, which is a sub-type of content analysis (Herring 2010, 238), we employ a coding scheme utilised by Paulus and Phipps (2008) who draw on Booth and Hultén's (2003) taxonomy of contributions to productive online discussions. Their phenomenographic approach 'stands out as an exemplary approach to identifying critical learning moments in online transcripts' (Yang and Goodyear 2006, 922); it provides a multi-layered, albeit category-driven, account of students' discourse, as agreeing, disagreeing, extending claims, and the like.…”