Student Dialogs
Four 45-minute discussions
from the non-teleconferencing classes were selected, transcribed, analyzed
and compared to the teleconferencing group's dialog. The discussions
chosen for transcription were days in which the discussions paralleled
those of the teleconferencing classes. Student talk was transcribed
and classified to ascertain peer interaction differences between groups.
The student dialog was analyzed
using a modified version of the Flanders Interaction Analysis System
(1970). Flanders did extensive classroom observation of thousands of
teachers at all educational levels and in many different content areas
(Reinman & Sprinthall, 1998). He categorized teacher talk into eight
areas and student talk into two areas. The ten categories were grouped
in two major clusters; indirect, Categories 1 to 4, and direct, Categories
5 to 7 according to Nate Gage (1978). Indirect interactions are more
participatory and are more typical of the types of interactions that
promote the construction of concepts. Direct interactions tend to be
univocal in nature and do not promote collegial building of understanding.
According to Vygotsky, indirect interactions or the collective construction
of knowledge in which constructive interaction takes place is the primary
mechanism of intellectual development. He believed that language is
central to the development of thought and it is through words that meaning
is formed and redefined. In fact, Vygotsky argued that social interactions
are the basis for an individual's development (Howe, 1996). Gage (1985)
found that at the secondary level, there is clear evidence that a more
direct mode leads to greater academic gains. Flanders also found that
the quality and frequency of student talk had a tremendously positive
effect on student achievement (Flanders & Morine, 1973).
On the modified instrument,
eight categories were established with Categories 1-4 representing indirect
talk and Categories 5-7 representing direct talk. Category 8 represented
neither direct nor indirect talk but confusion. Confusion in this study
was defined as many students speaking at the same time. This type of
talk was treated as part of the total student responses and therefore
is reflected in the indirect and direct percentages. Students' direct
to indirect talk as well as the number of student responses per time
period were compared (Table 2). To determine interater reliability (.82),
the teacher-researcher and an independent scorer scored two of the four
transcripts for each group.
Table 2: Students'
Responses by Category for Each Class Period
|
Telecommunication
Classes
|
Non-Telecommunication
Classes
|
|
One
class at each school
|
School
1
|
School
2
|
|
Category
|
Meeting
Number
|
Meeting
Number
|
Meeting
Number
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
1
Accept Feelings
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
2
Praise/Encourage
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
9
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
3
Accepts Ideas
|
11
|
10
|
15
|
27
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
10
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
|
4
Asks Questions
|
15
|
11
|
22
|
17
|
17
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
9
|
2
|
5
|
4
|
|
Subtotal
1-4
|
27
|
21
|
37
|
53
|
20
|
3
|
2
|
13
|
11
|
2
|
7
|
4
|
|
5
Lecture
|
19
|
14
|
30
|
35
|
66
|
29
|
13
|
55
|
33
|
28
|
35
|
42
|
|
6
Directions
|
8
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
7
Criticizes
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Subtotal
5-7
|
27
|
28
|
33
|
37
|
67
|
29
|
13
|
55
|
33
|
28
|
35
|
42
|
|
8
Silence/Confusion
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
7
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
#
of student
responses
|
56
|
49
|
70
|
91
|
87
|
32
|
15
|
75
|
46
|
30
|
42
|
46
|
|
%
Indirect
|
48
|
43
|
53
|
58
|
23
|
9
|
13
|
17
|
24
|
7
|
17
|
8
|
|
%Direct
|
52
|
57
|
47
|
42
|
77
|
91
|
87
|
83
|
76
|
93
|
83
|
92
|
Students in the teleconferencing
group asked more questions (1.3 per student) than the non- teleconferencing
groups (0.48 per student) and the number of questions asked remained
high in the teleconferencing group for each meeting. Teleconferencing
students used praise and encouragement type responses and accepted and
used each other's ideas 75% more frequently than the non-teleconferencing
groups. Furthermore, students in the telecommunication classes interacted
indirectly 52% of the time compared to the non-telecommunication classes
that interacted indirectly 18% and 15% of the time (Table 3). However,
the number of student responses remained high in all groups with the
non- teleconferencing class having the highest number of responses (87).
All classes had some confusion when students became excited, but this
was minor compared to the total number of student interactions. The
most important difference in the student interactions between the two
groups is the proportion of direct versus indirect dialog. The teleconferencing
groups' discussions were 36% more indirect than those of the non-teleconferencing
groups because they asked more questions and used each other's ideas
more frequently in their conversations.
Table 3: Summary of
Indirect and Direct Student Responses
|
Totals
|
Telecommunications
Classes
(one at each school)
|
Non-Telecommunications
Classes
|
|
School
1
|
School
2
|
|
Indirect
|
138
|
38
|
24
|
|
Direct
|
125
|
164
|
138
|
|
%
Indirect
|
52
|
18
|
15
|
|
%
Direct
|
48
|
82
|
85
|
