Presentation at 2012 Sloan-C Blended Conference and Workshop in Milwaukee, WI

1. Perfecting Interaction in Blended
Courses through Discourse Analysis
Susan Wegmann, Ph.D.
Kelvin Thompson, Ed.D
University of Central Florida

2. http://bit.ly/blend12_connectedstance

3. Why Are We Here?
• “Interaction” in blended courses = wild west
• Discourse analysis methods (f2f/online)
– > collect/analyze blended discourse data
– > learn about effective blended interactions
• Today’s Agenda
– Summarize research literature
– Share easy-to-use tools
– Invitation to participate
• Practitioner
• Research collaborator

4. Web Interactions
• Polls interspersed throughout
– Text messaging (send code to 37607)
– Twitter (tweet code to @poll)
– Web site (specific url)
– Specific codes to use for each response option on
each poll
• Twitter
– Conference hashtag: #blend12
– Tweet about this session: #blendgage
– Tweet us: @SusanWegmann @kthompso
4

5. Via web: http://bit.ly/poll_da

6. Discourse Analysis Primer
• Oral discourse (See http://bit.ly/oralbib)
– Traditionally audio recorded and transcribed
– Text coded (“moves”) and analyzed for themes
– Ideally, more researchers: inter-rater reliability
• Online discourse (See http://bit.ly/onlinebib)
– Typically occurs via text
– Text coded (“moves”) and analyzed for themes
– Ideally, more researchers: inter-rater reliability

7. The Connected Stance
• Line of discourse analysis research initiated by
Wegmann & McCauley (2007, 2010)
• Relationship between student academic
performance and discourse contributions
– Contributions = participation + engagement
– Participation = amount contributed
– Engagement = richness of contributions
• Purposive sampling: High, middle, low perform

8. Connected Stance “Moves”
• Standard themes for coding
• Purposes for student contributions
• How students use language
– May be simplistic or more complex
– May be self-referencing or dialogical
– May range from functional to sophisticated
– Currently 24 “moves” tracked (extensible)

9. Moves Delineated
• Introducing a new topic • Connecting to a previous thought
• Sharing opinion • Questioning (or wondering)
• Sharing beliefs • Giving an example
• Connecting to other readings • Sharing “Grand idea”
• Connecting to own experiences • Challenging a peer
• Connecting to their own • Connecting to course content
classrooms • Using humor
• Connecting to their own thinking • Couches reply to inform audience
• Building rapport • Leading up to a conclusion
• Suggesting organizational theme • Drawing a conclusion
• Revealing their own struggles • Challenging course content
• Responding to a peer’s question
• Giving information
• Giving advice

10. Connected Stance Process
1. Rank order students by cumulative grade
2. Compile written discourse from H, M, L students
3. Paste text into two columned chart
4. Code student text fragments using “moves”
5. Repeat with additional rater(s)
6. Tally number of words each student used
7. Tally number of moves each student used
8. Construct a quadrant graph (moves at bottom,
number of words vertically)
9. Plot H, M, L students on graph

12. Connected Stance Findings
• Higher performing students generally
contribute more to discourse and use
language for more varied purposes than lower
performing students = (The Connected Stance)
• Instructor intervention/facilitation can affect
change toward a Connected Stance (higher
participation/higher engagement) profile
– 3Rs (respond, react, reply)
– explicit written criteria

14. Connected Stance Status
• Qualitative data time consuming to
collect/analyze (especially f2f)
• Inter-rater reliability is a challenge
• Revised Approach
– Level 2: Existing Robust Methods
– Level 1: New Expedited Process (SCOPe)
• Fewer “meta moves”
• Increased ease of use
• Increased reliability

15. SCOPe of Interactions
• 24 “moves” consolidated to 4 “meta-moves”
• Language usage in interactions that are:
– Self-referencing
– Content-referencing
– Other- referencing
– Platform-referencing
• Worksheet tallies rather than robust analysis
• See examples: http://bit.ly/SCOPe_ex

16. SCOPe Process
1. Rank order students by cumulative grade
2. Tally meta-moves by H, M, L students
3. Worksheet proxy calculations for f2f word
count
4. Repeat with additional rater(s)
5. Follow worksheet to construct quadrant
graph
6. Plot H, M, L students on graph
7. See http://bit.ly/plot_ex

17. Some Research Questions We Have
• Under what f2f conditions with “The Connected
Stance” findings manifest?
• What particular classroom interaction techniques
are associated with higher student engagement
f2f?
• Are student behaviors associated with
engagement consistent between online and f2f
contexts of a blended course? That is, are
students who are highly engaged online also
highly engaged f2f?

18. Practitioner Recommendations
• Focus initially on courses in which interaction
is deliberately facilitated (majority of class
involved)
• Establish course (4+ weeks) before using
SCOPe
– Avoids orientation issues re: expectations
– Allows time for interventions

19. How Can You Get Involved?
• Get on mailing list for info/updates:
http://bit.ly/connectedstance_mailinglist
• Use SCOPe to examine interactions in blended
course -> inform teaching practice
• Design your own research project using
Connected Stance/SCOPe models
– We’d be happy to assist!

20. QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS?
DISCUSSION?

21. Contact
Dr. Susan Wegmann
Susan.Wegmann@ucf.edu
@SusanWegmann
Dr. Kelvin Thompson
kelvin@ucf.edu
@kthompso
http://bit.ly/blend12_connectedstance