The Affective Aspect of

Moderator’s Role Conception and Enactment

by Teachers

in A-Synchronous Learning Discussion Groups

Ofra Ben-Ami*/** & David Mioduser*

*Tel-Aviv University, School of Education

**Center for Educational Technology, Israel

ofrab@cet.ac.il

Background

ICT is integrated in all education levels in Israel.

University professors as well as elementary school teachers are trying on new teaching personae.

The paper concentrates on the affective role – the first of the three aspects discussed in the full study.

Literature

Previous studies describe the affective aspect as setting the moderator’s tone, and building the atmosphere of on-line class (Coppola et al, 2001; Winograd, 2001; Rossman, 1999).

Advantages: more equal and democratic learning environment, more opportunities for shy students, less biased communication (Harasim et al., 1995; Berge, 1997).

Difficulties: the need to develop social presence skills, the need to supplement skills that worked in F-T-F communication, the need to address student uncertainty (Tu, 2000; Coppola et al., 2001; Spitzer et al.1994; Kimbel, 1998).

 

 

Problems Arising from Literature

Focus of attention on academic moderators – what applies to elementary school teachers?

Experience prior to shift: classroom-discourse experienced by elementary school teachers (Cazden, 1988) – what does it take to build a different type of discourse?

Methodology: Insights and recommendations based on self-reported evidence from moderators and students – the need for cross-checking tools (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994).

Methodology and Research Instruments

The full research included 2 case-studies, using the ethnographical method.

It examined the work of 2 moderators (A and R) separately and comparatively.

The socializing stage was analyzed in relation to the affective aspect of the moderator's role.

Data analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively: the full computer logs of 8 discussion groups held by A and R; 3 in depth interviews.

Research Questions

How did A and R carry out the affective aspect of their role, and what interpretation can be given to their interactions with the students during the socializing stage?

 1. What characterizes the way A and R presented themselves to the students while

getting acquainted with them?

2. What characterizes the way A and R responded to student messages while socializing with them?

3. What characterizes the way A and R viewed themselves during the socializing stage of the on-line discussion, and how can the patterns identified in questions 1 and 2 be interpreted in light of A an R’s conception of themselves?

4. What is similar and what is different in A and R’s performance with regards to the affective aspect of their role during the socializing stage of the discussion forums.

Findings Patterns of Self-Presentation in Moderators’ Messages:

as individuals, as teachers, as forum-managers

A's replies R's replies 

63.5 % of 1st type 17.65 % of 1st type

 

36.5 % of 2nd type 55.3 % of 2nd type

 

20 % of 3rd type 41.2 % of 3rd type

Patterns Identified in Moderators’ Responses to Students’ Self-Presentations:

Encouraging the dialogue with the student

Discouraging it

Neutral

Table 1: Patterns of encouragement and discouragement in A’s responses (n=85(

No. of

pattern Pattern Pattern

characterization Frequency of pattern in A’s

replies (No. & %)

1Asking questions of interest Encouragement 43) 50.6%(

2Reassuring, agreeing or identifying with student’s comments

Encouragement41) 48.2%(

3Detailed response to student’s Encouragement38) 44.7%(

4ComplimentsEncouragement38) 44.7%(

5Amused and humoristic responsesEncouragement16) 18.8%(

6Standard greetingNeutral10) 11.8%(

7Lengthy response to short messages Encouragement10) 11.8%(

8Softened reservationNeutral9) 10.6%(

9Reservation Discouragement 2) 2.4%(

Table 2: Patterns of encouragement and discouragement in B’s responses (n=85(

No. of

pattern Pattern Pattern

characterization Frequency of pattern in A’s

replies (No. & %)

1Managerial response Discouragement 32) 37.7%(

2Reassuring, agreeing or identifying with student’s comments

Encouragement 23) 27.1%(

3Compliments Encouragement 10) 11.8%(

4Reflecting student’s ideas Encouragement 10) 11.8%(

5Asking questions of interest Encouragement 11) 12.9%(

6Reservation Discouragement6) 7.1%(

7Softened ReservationNeutral 6) 7.1%(

8Reprimanding Discouragement5) 5.9%(

9Standard greeting Neutral 5) 5.9%(

Discussion

A was concerned with establishing relationships, B was preoccupied with establishing control.

Socializing with students on-line led both teachers to try on a different persona.

Both preferred their persona as a real teacher, perceiving it to be more powerful and more capable of connecting to students.

Both felt less in control of the teaching situation.

Conclusions and Recommandations It is necessary to identify and differences between Tech-Mediated and FTF learning environments, and clarify the unique advantages each one holds for students and teachers alike, so that teachers can operate confidently in both learning environments.

Further research should put emphasis on students' perceptions as well.

A prolonged study of teachers’ shift to moderating is needed for developing helpful feedback that while on task.

The value of textual analysis cannot be overrated. It tells us a story that exceeds wishful thinking often attached to innovative technological tools.

 

Bibliography

Berge, Z. L. (1997). "Computer Conferencing and the On-Line Classroom". International Journal of Educational Telecommunications. 3(1), 3-21. 

Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom Discourse: The language of Teaching and Learning. NH: Heinemann Portsmouth.

 Coats, J. (1993). Women, Men and Language - A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language. London: Longman.

 Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R. and Rotter, N. (2001). “Becoming a Virtual Professor: Pedagogical Roles and ALN”, Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference of System Sciences, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Available at: http://computer.org/proceedings/hicss/0981/Volume%201/09811003abs.htm

Guba, E. G. and Lincoln Y. S. (1981). Effective Evaluation. San Francisco, Cal.: Jossey-Bass.

 Coats, J. (1993). Women, Men and Language - A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language. London: Longman.

Ferris, S .P. (1996). “Women On-Line: Cultural and Relational Aspects of Women’s Communication”, On-Line Discussion Groups, Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 4 (3-4), 29-40.

 Funaro, G. M. and Montell F. (1999). “Pedagogical Roles and Implementation Guidelines for Online Communication Tools”, ALN Magazine, 3 (2). Available at:http://www.aln.org/publications/magazine/v3n2/funaro.asp

 Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

 Harasim L., Hiltz S. R., Teles L. and Turoff, M. (1995). Learning Networks - A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. Cambridge, Ma: The MIT Press.

 Herring, S. C. (1996). “Bringing Familiar Baggage to the New Frontier: Gender Differences in Computer-Mediated Communication”. In V. Vitanza (Ed.), Cyber-Reader. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 144-154. Online: Keynote talk (1994), American Library Association: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/gender/herring.txt

 

 

Kimbel, L. (1998). Managing Distance Learning - New Challenges for Faculty.Available at: http://groupjazz.com/pdf/dist-fac.pdf

 Mioduser, D. and Nahmias, R. (2002). “WWW in Education: An Overview”. In A. B. Collis and M. Pawlowsky (Eds.), Handbook on Information Technologies for Education & Training. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer, pp. 23-43.

 Rheingold, H. (1998). The Art of Hosting Good Conversations Online. Available at: http://www.rheingold.com/texts/artonlinehost.html

 Rossman, M. H. (1999). “Successful Online Teaching Using an Asynchronous Learner Discussion Forum”. JALN 3 (2) 91-97. Available at:

http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v3n2/pdf/v3n2_rossman.pdf

 Spitzer, W., Wedding, K. and DiMauro, V. (1994). Fostering Reflective Dialogues for Teacher Professional Development. Available at:http://www.terc.edu/papers/labnet/Guide/Fostering_Refl_Dialogues.html

 

Tu, C. H. (2000). “Critical Examination of Factors Affecting Interaction on CMC”, Journal of Network and Computer Applications (23) 39-58. Available at:http://www.idealibrary.com

 Winograd, D. (2001) Guidelines to Moderating Online Educational Computer Conferences. Available at: http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/winograd.html