Wednesday, April 29, 1998, 2:00 pm Eastern Standard Time

Martha Dillner: Why don't we all introduce ourselves while we are waiting for the others to join us. I am Martha Dillner from the UHCL and will try to facilitate the chat by getting it started and moving from topic to topic if need be. I am the content editor of Reading Online and am currently living in Houston, Texas.

Pat Westergaard: I am Pat Westergaard from Texas A&M University-Commerce. I am the CPDT director.

Martha Dillner: Pat, what does the CPDT director do?

Pat Westergaard: We have a 12-district partnership. I coordinate our teacher education programs.

David Pearson: Hello everyone!

Bill Valmont: I'm Bill Valmont, Director of Technology in the College of Education at the University of Arizona and incoming chair of the IRA Technology, Communications and Literacy committee.

Joan Hughes: Hi, I'm Joan Hughes. I am a third-year doctoral candidate in educational psychology at Michigan State University. I have worked with David Pearson for three years on the Reading Classroom Explorer (RCE) project.

Martha Dillner: I guess everyone knows that Becky and Joan are doctoral students with David.

Becky Packard: Hi, I'm Becky Packard, and I am a Ph.D. candidate in Educational Psychology. I have been working with David and Joan on the Reading Classroom Explorer for the past 2 years.

Maya Eagleton: I am an educational technology consultant and doctoral student at The University of Arizona.

David Pearson: OK, we are ready for questions/comments/issues/whatever.

Martha Dillner: OK, let's get started. We decided to leave this open ended. So does anyone have a question to ask David, Becky, or Joan?

Becky Packard: We could tell you more about the research we have been doing, integrating RCE into teacher education courses.

Maya Eagleton: Did the participants make use of the bulletin board feature of RCE?

Pat Westergaard: Let me clarify the goal of your project. You want to provide exposure to culturally and intellectually diverse students for preservice teachers. Is that close?

Bill Valmont: You included about half of your subjects in your article. Were there any significant things you could have said about the other subjects?

Martha Dillner: Why don't we start with Maya's question since it was the first one asked.

David Pearson: In the study that is on ROL, the bulletin board feature (what we called the Notebook) was not available during this study. We have used it more extensively since.

Maya Eagleton: What is your sense of the value of the Notebook?

Martha Dillner: Can you elaborate on "extensive?"

Joan Hughes: Since it was a pilot study, we had students come in for about an hour, so they didn't really have the time or context to use it to a great extent. In the later studies students used the Notebook as a place to document their learning and even construct "interactive" papers.

Maya Eagleton: Tell us more about "interactive papers" notion.

Becky Packard: The Notebook can be used to construct multimedia "presentations" vs. traditional papers. That is, they can "note" video clips and recall them, together with the context of an argument. To substantiate their argument with the video clips.

David Pearson: By interactive paper, we mean a paper in which you can embed clips as well as text. It would be comparable to creating a powerpoint presentation with clips embedded to make particular points, etc.

Maya Eagleton: It sounds like your current research includes much more than the original! Tell us all about it.

Becky Packard: The results that we found in the pilot study did appear in later studies. For example, we saw Diane conceptualize the Explorer as a Construction Zone, while another saw it as a Teaching Machine. Some students in our current research really invested in the Explorer (Investors) and used the Explorer to engage in discussion and revisit instances of practice. Others used it a bit just to find the "one way" to teach. Looking at it as a "Teaching Machine."

Maya Eagleton: I'm also curious what kind of authoring software you used to create RCE.

David Pearson: I am commenting on another aspect of the study that Becky is introducing right now. We examined the nature and the source and the quality of the arguments that students used in answering broad questions about the teaching of reading.

Bill Valmont: Have you encountered additional metaphors in your new research?

Joan Hughes: Maya, I used SuperCard to create RCE. We are in the process of moving it over to the web in which we will use video-streaming technology to distribute the video in accessible manner.

Pat Westergaard: The pilot study sample was 9 students who volunteered to participate in the study. How have you selected students in your later research?

David Pearson: Another study conducted by Kathy Reichl and Joan and Becky has examined the use of the Notebook more closely. With any luck (from the reviewers) we will report on the efficacy of the Notebook feature at NRC this December.

Joan Hughes: In later research, a methods course and a summer Master's course our selection criteria again was just any of the students who volunteered to participate. In some cases, the students decided to what extent they would participate. Like some only let us see their papers, others let us videotape their work on the Explorer, others let us interview; some participated in all.

Maya Eagleton: My interest in the Notebook feature stems from an interest in the use of multimedia as a construction tool in addition to its use as a presentation tool.

Becky Packard: Instead of new metaphors for conceptualizing the environment, we had ways of thinking about investment in the technology. We had Investors who heavily invested in the technology, even when it was not required for writing papers in the course. Others were Compliers, who used Explorer the one time it was required. Also, we had Resistors who did not use the Explorer even when it was required. This was tied to students' having trouble with the technology. We found that the Investors wrote papers that had arguments, backed up by evidence, and then were further elaborated and interpreted. They also used a cross-classroom lens in their papers and discussions about practice, which use of the Explorer seemed to foster. In addition, they appeared to appreciate the diversity of approaches presented in the videos after using the Explorer more extensively. This is important especially when using videos that present diverse approaches to practice, so they do not disregard models of practice.

Bill Valmont: I am interested to your reaction to the one person's comments about not understanding the context of the video clip he or she was reacting to. (The kids looked like they were engaged in a language-experience story, but the person didn't seem able to recognize that.) Will you provide some context or introductions for video clips in future research?

Joan Hughes: Bill, that is an issue we've been struggling with. In the CD-ROM version, there was not a function for users to go back and forth through the individual videos as CSR created them. However, students had viewed the videos in class in the web version, though we hope to have the videos accessible in a complete format. Of course, we don't know what that might mean if we go out and shoot more video (which we will).

David Pearson: I should mention one other aspect of this work. We used the CSR videos only as a launching pad to get us into the technology and evaluate several features of the learning environment. We are now collecting lots more video in more classrooms in order to expand the range and diversity of the classrooms available in the "library." At some point, I would like to have a version that would permit preservice and practicing teachers to visit even more classrooms.

Pat Westergaard: I notice that students sit down with a trained researcher. Is this person also a teacher who responds to questions as the students work?

David Pearson: In the new video that we shoot, we are not likely to use the CSR format of completely finished videos. They will more in the nature of classroom snapshots. We need to distinguish between the use of the video in study 2, which was really in the reading methods classroom, and the data collection process in both studies 1 and 2, which did involve a researcher side by side with the student or students as they did think alouds. In study 1, the ROL study, everything was with the researcher at their side. We were mainly interested in how they navigated the technology and how they regard the learning environment.

Pat Westergaard: How did the researcher support the video/learning?

Joan Hughes: What do you mean, Pat?

Pat Westergaard: Did the researcher answer content questions, assist in technology?

Joan Hughes: As we sat near them, we assisted more with technology. We didn't really say anything about content. We gave them an issue to explore and then after about 15 or so minutes, we asked them what they thought about that issue then.

Bill Valmont: Are you satisfied with doing some single interviews and some pair interviews? I thought from the video and sound clips that the pairs were slightly advantaged because of their interplay. What plans to you have in this area?

Becky Wai-Ling Packard: Bill, in our next study, we offered the option of having students use the Explorer in pairs or alone. We saw that pairs did engage in discussion around what they saw in the Explorer. One student who worked alone, would ask questions about what he saw in video clips but no one was there to answer or discuss it. In the study after that, students worked in pairs and trios to construct questions they wanted to address using the Explorer.

Bill Valmont: Great. I believe the singles were at a slight disadvantage.

Joan Hughes: Yes, with pairs, think-aloud is more natural because you have a real audience for your thinking.

Pat Westergaard: In the second study, how many of the participants were novice in technology?

David Pearson: If I had to ASSIGN work, I would make pairs the default configuration. The cross talk is very educational for both parties. But then, there are lots of folks who prefer to work alone. That in fact would make an interesting aptitude by treatment interaction analysis.

Becky Wai-Ling Packard: We think a real benefit of using the Explorer in a course and in pairs/groups is that students have practice that can serve as a common ground for discussion. But in one pair of Investors, one woman was trying to push the conversation to an end to try to finish the discussion and often halted the discussion. Possibly, her partner did not gain as much as she wanted to from this pair, since she was very interested in spending time discussing instead of just finishing an assignment.

Joan Hughes: In the summer Master's class, the instructor chose to have her students work in pairs and trios to work on their projects. We have not yet analyzed that data.

Maya Eagleton: The method of delivery (collaborative vs. individual) has confounded many research results in our field, but you all seem to have this under control!

David Pearson: I am not sure we have the group thing under control, but I think it needs much more systematic research. Haven't some folks been examining the "social" character of in person collaboration in technological environments?

Maya Eagleton: Rob Tierney was mentioning in our last chat that he is interested in the sociocultural aspects of technology in learning environments.

David Pearson: Yong Zhao on our faculty at MSU is examining the social practices in environments like the one we are using!

Joan Hughes: As far as study 2, there was a range of technology experience/background among the participants. The class was a Post-BA group so a lot of these individuals had professional jobs before returning to get their certification.

Bill Valmont: Were the subjects using the think-aloud strategy in any other work? I recall that you did a short example for them, but do you feel that was adequate?

Becky Wai-Ling Packard: Yes, I think the short excerpt we gave was adequate...after they had seen the video excerpt demonstrating the think-aloud method (whether for pair or single) they appeared to be at-ease with the procedure.

David Pearson: back to the ROL study, someday I want to do another initiation study in which we are able to study the robustness of our metaphors and to link them to individual difference characteristics.

Pat Westergaard: In preservice courses at our university, there is such a wide range of ability levels. Your program seems to support the technology with the researcher. Would lack of technology experience be a problem for students trying to socially construct the content?

Becky Wai-Ling Packard: Not so much with the study 1. One participant said that she felt that she was trying out all the features and building on her technology skills. In study 2, I think that our RCE "training session" seemed to help. Most students were able to proceed, especially in pairs with using the CD. Others who had trouble contacted us by phone or e-mail and we would help them through issues, such as getting the CD stuck in the computer or other errors. Also, we made up a help sheet to remind them.

Maya Eagleton: Did you do any member checks with your original metaphors?

Joan Hughes: We didn't do member checking. But sort of like that, with two participants we had a viewing session in which we had each member of a pair watch part of their videotaped work and stop the video wherever there was something interesting that they wanted to comment on. In this way, we understood better the participants' own perspective on what they were thinking at certain times and how they felt about working with each other.

Bill Valmont: Have you linked your metaphors to basic personality types. That is, is Kevin the teaching machine and AAA trip-tik kind of guy in many things or did your experiment cause him to act as he did?

Maya Eagleton: I can see where a longer study with the same participants would reduce the "learn the technology" effect.

Joan Hughes: We did not do any personality type assessments.

David Pearson: Pat, with respect to "socially constructed" content, we need, in study 2, to distinguish between the actual work people did together (lots of folks, for example, did their assignments together, and the data collection context that we negotiated with a few folks who let us eavesdrop on their work, be it alone or in pairs. In neither study do I think we intervened enough to say that we influenced the construction of content. But, as I said, I am very interested in the question of whether learning is enhanced in in-person social contexts.

Joan Hughes: My question to the group is: I wonder if you read our article in the NRC Yearbook and also saw the one in Reading Online. The content is basically the same but the multimedia stuff was added. Do you think this was helpful or not or any comments on it....

Maya Eagleton: I thought you handled the metaphor concept well by suggesting that RCE has a "chameleon-like" quality; that is, it adapts to each type of learner.

Becky Wai-Ling Packard: I think that the conceptualizations of the environment are not necessarily personality types because I think they are adaptable. For example, in study 2, some participants came into it looking for the one right answer, but throughout the semester, gained a more complex understanding of practice, and realized that they could construct their own teaching philosophy based on parts of what they saw in the videos. They didn't necessarily have to emulate one teacher to get it right. Perhaps this was with students who were more invested in bettering their practice, but I would think it had to do with engaging in multiple discussions and experiences, with the Explorer being one, highlighting the complexity of practice and their own role in constructing conceptions of becoming a teacher of reading.

Bill Valmont: As time slips by so rapidly, I want to tell you how pleased I am with your research efforts as well as your skill in placing your multimedia "paper" in Reading Online.

David Pearson: Thanks, Bill. Our goal is to expand the capabilities of RCE as much as we can in the next year and then do a second round of studies. The Web version is coming along, but we also have to add some content features to the CD version, such as more articles to consult when you want to know more about the topic. We would even like to have the abstracts or even the articles available on line so it could be a genuine hypertext environment! If [articles] were online, we could put links to specific articles in our environment. then a person could go directly from the video to the article. I think that would be real powerful!

Maya Eagleton: It would bring theory, research and practice much closer together to have those links available. I am interested in Joan's question -- but I missed the NRC article. Did anyone see both versions?

Maya Eagleton: Also, will the Web version be accessible to us?

Joan Hughes: Sure, the Web version will be accessible. We have to figure out some contractual issues with University of Illinois and CSR since their video is in it now.

Pat Westergaard: I am excited about the potential for supporting technology in teaching through your work. What type of response do faculty at your university have to your work?

David Pearson: Several folks who teach methods courses use the videotapes religiously. Some of those have volunteered to use the hypermedia version, but we are moving outward slowly, trying to make sure we get it into as user friendly a form as possible.

Pat Westergaard: I must join another meeting. Thanks for letting me learn more about your work.

Martha Dillner: I have had people tell me that that they like being able to see the videos. However, they take some time to download. As long as they have the time to download them, the video version really enhances the article.

Joan Hughes: Yes, the video part is slow. Videostreaming is one answer....

Joan Hughes: All of our articles are on the Web off my CV on my Web site. The address is: www.msu.edu/user/hughesj9/cv.html so you can read the more recent research if interested.

Maya Eagleton: Joan, thank you for the URL. I will definitely visit your site.

Martha Dillner: It's about time to stop. Does anyone have any last minute comments?

Bill Valmont: I am about to run to a meeting. Hope to see all of you in Orlando!!!! Enjoyed the chat.

David Pearson: Thanks to all of you for joining the conversation! It was great fun!

Becky Wai-Ling Packard: I was glad to participate. Please comment on the future research if anyone gets a chance...

Joan Hughes: Thanks, it was really interesting.

Maya Eagleton: Keep us posted on your continuing research efforts. Very fascinating and informative.