online genderpresentation
TRANSCRIPT
Communication By Gender in Online Courses
Embracing Innovation, Encouraging Excellence Conference
By Linda Loring, Ph.D
Summary
This study examined language use (linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers), communication of beliefs (classification of postings), and patterns of communication (interaction) in four online graduate courses to determine whether differences in patterns of communication existed between men and women. These three elements are the major aspects of the “dimensions of discourse” (Mazur, 2004, p. 1074). These patterns of communication, or types of interactions, are related to the quality of learning as communication of beliefs is a major indication of cognition (Mazur, 2004).
Relation to LearningComputer-Mediated Communication
(CMC)Online Learning and Collaborative
Learning TheoryGender Differences Evidenced in
CMCUse of Content Analysis when
Studying Learning Online
Online Learning and Collaborative Learning TheoryInteraction of peer group and
individualAspects
Emotional supportShared outcomes via social
discourseCollaborative Process
Gender Differences Evidenced in CMC
Communication differs between genders and self-regulated differently
Studies on gender differences in communication
Use of Content AnalysisMany online studies use Content
Analysis (CA)Used to help understand online
learningMany classification systems
availableMost widely used are Henri and
Gunawardena
Process for Content Analysis
An individual originates a communication. Another individual then views it. A researcher questions some of its
aspects and develops criteria for coding the parts of the communication.
Researchers code the communication. They compile the codes, and then
analyze the data collected
My Research Questions
Are there difference between the types of communication patterns in the posts of men and women in the online course room?
Is there a difference in terminology used in online courses between men and women?
Methodology
Postings were coded using both Henri’s classification (Henri, 1992) and Gunawardena’s classification (Gunawardena et al., 1997) system
The unit of meaning was coded for Henri, and for Gunawardena the entire message was coded.
A text analysis identified linguistic intensifiers and qualifiers
Population/Statistics
Mid-west University, graduate program
More Females in the classes than males
Mann-Whitney Tests
Coding Classification
Henri’s Classification System Gunawardena’s Classification System
Discussion Forums from graduate online courses were coded according to two classification systems that have had relatively extensive use:
Henri’s Classification System
Participation: Compiling statistics on quantity of messages
Social: Communication not related to course content
Interaction: Clear connections to other messages
Cognitive: Knowledge and learning skills Metacognitive: Personal regulation of
learning
Henri: SocialDefinition: Communication not
related to course contentExplanation: “Statement or part of
statement not related to formal content of subject matter” *
Example: “Self-introduction; Verbal support; 'I'm feeling great.......!'”* “I teach at …”
Henri: InteractionDefinition: Clear connections to other
messages “Direct response; direct commentary; indirect response; indirect commentary”***
Explanation: “Continuing a thread; Quoting from others’ messages; Referring explicitly to others’ messages; Asking questions; complimenting, expressing appreciation, or agreement
Henri: CognitiveDefinition: knowledge and learning
skillsExplanation: “Statements exhibiting
knowledge and skills relating to learning processes”**
Example: “Asking questions; Making inferences; Formulating hypotheses” **
Henri: MetacognitiveDefinition: Personal regulation of learning
Explanation: “Statement or part of statement not related to formal content of subject matter” **
Example: “Commenting on own manner of accomplishing a task;” “Being aware of the emotional context of task completion.” **
Gunawardena’s Classification System Sharing/Comparing of information Discovery and exploration of dissonance
or inconsistency among ideas, concepts or statements
Negotiation of meaning /Co-construction of knowledge
Testing and modification of proposed synthesis or co-construction
Agreement statements; Applications of newly constructed meaning
Gunawardena’s Sharing/Comparing of information
A statement of observation or opinion A statement of agreement from one or more
other participants Corroborating examples provided by one or
more participants Asking and answering questions to clarify
details of statements Definition, description, or identification of a
problem
Gunawardena’s Discovery and exploration of dissonance Identifying and stating areas of disagreement Asking and answering questions to clarify the
source and extent of disagreement Restating the participant’s position, and
possibly advancing arguments or considerations in its support by references to the participant’s experience, literature, formal data collected, or proposal of relevant metaphor or analogy to illustrate point of view
Gunawardena’s Negotiation of meaning Negotiation or clarification of the meaning of
terms Negotiation of the relative weight to be
assigned to types of argument Identification of areas of agreement or
overlap among conflicting concepts Proposal and negotiation of new statements
embodying compromise co-construction Proposal of integrating or accommodating
metaphors or analogies
Gunawardena’s Testing
Testing the proposed synthesis against “received fact” as shared by the participants and or their culture
Testing against existing cognitive schema Testing against personal experience Testing against formal data collected Testing against contradictory testimony in the
literature
Gunawardena’s Agreement statements
Summarization of agreement(s) Application of new knowledge Metacognitive statements by the
participants illustrating their understanding that their knowledge or ways of thinking (cognitive schema) have changed as a result of the conference interaction
Combination Henri’s and Gunawardena’s classification
systems are the most-widely replicated and/or adapted when studying online courses.
Gunawardena’s and Henri’s classification system compliment each other.
The social aspects some scholars found lacking in Henri’s classification are addressed in Gunawardena’s system.
Terminology
Is there a difference in the use of linguistic intensifiers, such as very, only, every, never, or always in online courses between men and women?
Is there a difference in the use of linguistic qualifiers, such as but, if, may, I think, often, probably, or though in online courses between men and women.
Results from Henri’s Classification
No difference quantity of messages posted by men and women
No difference between the amount of social communication posted not related to the course content posted by men or women.
No difference between the numbers of interactions posted by men or women.
No significant difference between the quantity of metacognitive postings made by men and women.
Implications from Henri’s Data
Generally an instructional designer does not need to make special accommodations when both men and women are involved in computer-mediated communication
Results from Gunawardena’s Classification
Generally there was no difference between the quantity of posts indicating sharing and comparing of information made by males and females. However, there is one aspect of Gunawardena’s Phase I classification that is labeled corroboration. Data from this study indicated females wrote significantly more corroborating postings than did males
Data from this study demonstrated that males posted a statistically significant higher number of postings related to the discovery and exploration of dissonance and inconsistencies between ideas, concepts, and statements
Not enough postings were coded to the last three classification phases. Lack of postings at these levels is also consistent with other research studies
Implications from Gunawardena’s Data
Men express more of a need to explore inconsistencies.
Do they fit?
“Do you see any inconsistencies between ‘a’ and ‘b’?”
Women offer more corroborating examplesNeed listing brainstorming
Support for proposals
Mix males and females in Small Groups if at all possible
Results from Study of Terminology
The data from this study demonstrated there was no difference in the use of linguistic intensifiers (very, only) or linguistic qualifiers (“I think,” “probably”) by men and women.
Implications of Textual Analysis on Terminology
Findings from this study are in direct contradiction to studies by Fahy (2002a, b), Fahy and Ally (2001), Lawlor (2006), and Guiller and Durndell (Guiller & Durndell, 2007). However, the data from this study is consistent with the findings by Graddy (Graddy, 2006) and Palomares (2004). In this study, as also in Graddy’s study (2006), there was no male crowding out because the preponderance of the sample was females. Unfortunately, conflicting results from replication of this part of the study point out the necessity for studies to be larger, more comprehensive, and include multiple disciplines
Ramifications
Relatively large number of postings.
Significant findings were found in two patterns of communication. The fact that no significant difference were found in terminology is very controversial.
Design certain populations
Questioning Techniques
Conclusion
“We look forward to further application of these and other such protocols to provide researchers and online instructors with improved analysis tools and data that ultimately will have a positive impact on our abilities to design and implement effective online learning experiences.” (Marra et al., 2004, p. 39).
How can IWU use this Information?
Mixing Groups male and female Possibility of using content analysis
to discover other facets of learning online
References for Presentation
Fahy, P. J. (2002a). Epistolary and expository interaction patterns in acomputer conference transcript. The Journal of Distance Education,17(1).
Fahy, P. J. (2002b). Use of linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers in a computer conference. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 5-22. Retrieved October 30, 2004 from
http://cde.athabascau.ca/showcase/ajde.doc
Fahy, P. J., Crawford, G., & Ally, M. (2001). Patterns of interaction in a computer conference transcript. International Review of Research inOpen and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved October 15, 2004 from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v2.1/fahy.html)
Graddy, D. B. (2006). Gender salience and the use of linguistic qualifiers andintensifiers in online course discussions [Electronic version].American Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 211-229.
References (cont)
Gregory, M. Y. (1997). Gender differences: An examination of computermediated communication. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe Southern States Communication Association, Savanah, GA(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410 604).
Guiller, J., & Durndell, A. (2007). Students’ linguistic behaviour in onlinediscussion groups: Does gender matter? [electronic version].Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2240-2255.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a globalonline debate and the development of an interaction analysis modelfor examining social construction of knowledge in computerconferencing [Electronic version]. Journal of Educational ComputingResearch, 17(4), 397-431.
References (cont)
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye(Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp.117-136.). London: Springer-Verlag.
Herring, S. C. (2000). Gender differences in CMC: Findings and implications.CPSR Newsletter, 18(1). Retrieved July 25, 2006 from
http://www.cpsr.org/issues/womenintech/herring/view?searchterm=Herring)
Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and power in online communication. In M.Meyerhoff (Ed.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 202228). Oxford: Blackwell.
Lawlor, C. (2006). Gendered interactions in computer-mediated computerconferencing [electronic version]. The Journal of Distance Education,21(2), 26-43.
References (cont)
Marra, R. M., Moore, J., & Klimczak, A. (2004). Content analysis of onlinediscussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols [Electronicversion]. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(2),23-40.
Mazur, J. M. (2004). Conversation analysis for educational technologists: Theoretical and methodological issues for researching thestructures, proecesses and meaning of on-line talk. In D. H.Johassen (Ed.), Handbook for research in educationalcommunications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1073-1098). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Palomares, N. A. (2004). Gender schematicity,gender identity salience, andgender linked language use [Electronic version]. HumanCommunication Research, 30(4), 556-588.