Exploring MOO Environments for Self-Study

Lisa DeMeulle, Rebecca S. Anderson, and John M. Johnston
The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA

Paper presented at the International Conference,

Self-Study in Teacher Education: Empowering our Future,

Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England August 5-8, 1996

 

Exploring MOO Environments for Self-Study

This paper reports our exploration of using of on-line collegial dialogue in a MOO environment as a method for self-study. On-line dialogue refers to conducting real time written conversations within a text based computer environment, in this case a MOO. A MOO [Multiple user dimension Object Oriented] is a computer program, accessed via Telnet, in which multiple users located anywhere in the world can simultaneously interact with each other. This paper discusses the purpose, method, and impact of using a MOO environment for self-study. The participants are John, an early childhood teacher educator, Becky, a literacy educator, and Lisa, an elementary teacher educator. Our self-study centered around a graduate early childhood literacy course that Becky and John were team teaching.

 

Purpose of engaging in on-line dialogue

There are four reasons we wanted to explore the use of on-line collegial dialogue for self-study. A primary reason we engaged in this inquiry is because we wanted to improve our own teaching. We, like many other teacher educators (Hamilton, 1996; Loughran, 1996; Munby, 1995; Olson, 1996; 1993; Russell, 1995) value self-study as an emerging form of reflective practice.

 

Second, we wanted to experience and model what we advocate to our students. We expect our students to engage in teacher research, a form of intentional and systematic reflective inquiry conducted by K-12 educators (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993) because as our students learn to become producers and disseminators of knowledge, they gain power to influence educational decisions (Hollingsworth & Sockett, 1994).

 

Third, we wondered if on-line collegial dialogue would help overcome barriers such as time, cost and isolation associated with self-study. Because many approaches to self-study are time consuming in terms of data collection and analysis, and often involve expense, teacher educators may not be encouraged to pursue self-study as a form of inquiry. Generally, teacher educators also work in isolation and the collegial support needed is often missing.

 

Finally, as the Internet becomes more common in homes and schools, we feel it is our professional responsibility to explore ways this technology can enhance our teaching and learning, as well as our students. Indeed, new teacher education standards in our state (Tennessee State Board of Education, 1996) require students to be able to integrate a variety of Internet tools into their practice.

 

Method of self-study

For one semester, we studied our practice using two forms of technology. First, each week, John and Becky, exchanged dialogue journals via E-mail about each three-hour class session. Lisa, who served as a facilitator of these conversations, also received an E-mail copy of these journal entries. Second, we all met on-line for one hour each week to engage in a written conversation about our teaching. Although there are multiple environments on the Internet in which to engage in on-line dialogue, our conversations occurred in a MOO environment.

 

Conversations in a MOO environment

Communication on a MOO occurs as users write and transmit text (talk). The generated text is visible on each user’s monitor and can be read by all others logged on to the same virtual location. Participants can respond by typing and sending their response that is immediately visible to all others at that location. As participants enter new text, it appears at the bottom of each participants’ monitor, with text scrolling upward as the conversation continues. The MOO conversational medium is simply a matter of typing what one wants to say, and then entering a RETURN command to send the communication.

 

On-line collegial dialogue

Every Thursday from 1:00-2:00 each of us would close ourselves up in our university offices, sit down at our computers, and Telnet to MOOsaico. Once connected, a password gave us access to a reserved space which allowed us to converse privately. Acting in her capacity as facilitator, Lisa would begin the conversation with observations taken from her reading of the dialogue journals that Becky and John had written. At the completion of each session, we printed a hard copy transcript of our written conversations.

 

Data analysis

Our approach to analyzing the data was threefold. First, prior to beginning each weekly on-line dialogue, we individually made notes on printed copies of John and Becky’s E-mail journal entries. These notes consisted of questions, areas of agreement and disagreement, and new insights about our teaching. These notes then helped launch and frame the weekly dialogues.

 

Second, in 7 of the 12 dialogues, a portion of our weekly conversation was devoted to meta-cognitively reflecting (Kaplan, 1990) on the the use of on-line dialogue for self-inquiry. We made explicit what each of us was learning and shared our thoughts about various research procedures used in this study. These forms of meta-cognitive conversations were important because they provided us a mechanism to clarify assumptions of the study, rethink the framing of our research questions, and develop hypotheses.

 

Finally, we analyzed the data at the completion of the study. Our data set consisted of 12 transcripts of one hour on-line dialogues, 13 sets of weekly E-mail journal entries, and researcher notes taken during on-line dialogues. We began by independently reading the E-mail journals and transcripts in their entirety to get a feel for the nature of our conversations and gain insights about the research method. We then did a second reading as a group, and using open-coding, we noted issues and topics of conversation for each transcript (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). It was at this point, after multiple levels of analysis, two salient features emerged.

 

The attributes of on-line dialogue

We identified two specific features in understanding on-line dialogue : (a) negotiating the mechanics of written conversation in a MOO environment, and (b) the impact of a MOO medium on the nature of our conversations. In a previous paper we have discussed the mechanics of written conversation in a MOO environment (DeMeulle, Anderson & Johnston, 1996). This present paper focuses on how the MOO medium impacted the nature of our conversations.

 

Impact of a MOO environment on our conversations

Our conversations centered around several themes related to democratic classrooms: peer assessment, developing criteria and standards with students, feedback vs. grading, and student-centered assignments. We discovered several ways that the MOO environment influenced these conversations. First, the nature of our dialogues changed over time. Second, our conversations tended to remain on one topic for an extended period of time. Third, we found we were able to merge practical and theoretical knowledge. Finally, we found that scheduling a specific time to meet each week wasn’t always conducive to reflective thinking.

 

Our changing dialogues.

Our first two conversations were awkward. We jumped from topic to topic, talked over one another, and explored our roles as co-researchers in this study. During meta-cognitive processing in the second conversation, Lisa was trying to make meaning of her role in the self-study:

 

On-line dialogue #2

J: Do you have expectations about what you will get from it [self-study]?

L: That the three of us can join together and talk about ourselves as teachers, something I don’t get to do very often. No expectations other than self-insight.

B: Do you think it can influence your teaching?

L: Sure, I’m already thinking about the issues you two have and how they are prevalent in my own classes.

 

By the third session, we were more comfortable with the conventions and procedures of MOO conversations, more focused on one topic of conversation, and our roles were less of a concern. Toward the completion of the study, we had moved to a point in our dialogues where we were able to reflect back over the semester and articulate what we had learned as a result of engaging in self-study. For example:

 

On-line dialogue #12

L: What if we discuss what we’ve learned about peer eval, and what questions we still have now? What have you learned that you didn’t know before?

J: I’ve learned new strategies that I hadn’t used before, and had an opportunity to try them out in a class to see how they worked.

L: I’ve learned that peer assessment is one way to evaluate student learning, and that its main purpose is to help promote self-understanding. This was new for me.

B: I guess I’m still struggling with the grades vs. learning issue. Should peer assessment be just for facilitating learning? I get concerned/confused about students giving each other grades.

 

In summary, our conversations began somewhat awkwardly, and within 14 weeks, we were having focused professional dialogue about things we had learned and posing new questions for future inquiry.

 

Time on topic.

We found that on-line dialogue was conducive to in-depth discussion and reflection for two reasons related to lag time. Both net lag, and the lag time involved in typing responses, forced us to wait longer to respond than if we were speaking verbally to each other. We discussed this aspect in our fifth conversation:

 

On-line dialogue #5

L: I have a hypothesis. I think we stay more on one topic than we would in a conversation. In a conversation, you drift with the dialogue, but here, you stay more focused on one point because it takes longer to respond. Do you agree?

B: Yes.

J: Yes.

 

We became reluctant to start a new topic until we were sure that no one had further comments to make. This wait time encouraged us to keep reflecting on the topic at hand. For instance, in the beginning of our ninth dialogue we engaged in an in-depth discussion about the difference between criteria and standards:

 

On-line dialogue #9

J: Could we pause a moment and reflect on what we mean by criteria?

L: I found a great article on the difference between standards and criteria....Criteria specify general requirements while standards represent the degree to which these requirements need to be satisfied in particular instances.

J: I have been confusing criteria and standards. I wonder if the students have been confusing them too?

 

As this dialogue continued, we were able to move from the definition to implications for our practice:

 

On-line dialogue #9

J: It now makes sense to me to discuss standards after students are well into writing their paper, but criteria need to come closer to the front end. I am learning!

 

Lag time offered the opportunity to spend more time on topic, thereby sustaining reflection which resulted in gaining new understandings about our theory and practice.

 

The merging of theory and practice. For us, a major strength of our approach was that our discussions became a time for reflecting not only on our practice, but also for examining the personal theories we held in connection with those practices. This is illustrated in our seventh conversation:

 

On-line dialogue #7

B: Last semester when the student teachers developed the categories/criteria they felt that it was worth it. This semester, I don’t think that...it would create less tension for the students if we told them the categories, but they will also end up having less ownership...

J: ...but the way people respond to categories is what is looked at, that tells the tale, so the issue becomes how to preserve ownership with "laid on" categories.

B: I see it connected to the power/democratic issues. Who has the power to decide what the categories should be - who knows?

 

In this excerpt, we discussed a practical concern of creating criteria with students, which led us to explore more theoretical issues of democracy and power in the classroom. However, we discovered that we were unable to reflect on more global or theoretical issues if one of us had a specific classroom concern.

 

On-line dialogue #9

L: Your journal entries appear to indicate that there is a "flow" to your class now. Things seem to be running smoothly.

B: I would like...

J: You are right, things are running fairly smoothly.

B: ...for us to discuss when to develop criteria with students.

 

Here we see that Lisa attempted to begin a more global conversation, but Becky had a specific need to discuss, and thus changed the direction of the conversation to meet her needs. This phenomenon occurred in many of our discussions. Once a specific need was met through discussion, we would often return to a more social, political, or theoretical issue related to education.

 

Scheduled reflection. In most of our on-line dialogues, we were fully engaged in the discussion; however, our eighth conversation proved to be an exception. During this conversation, we had problems staying focused:

 

On-line dialogue #8

B: I still feel the need for a lit review!

L: On peer eval?

B: Yes.

L: I’m feeling very distracted, hard to focus today, sorry.

J: Regarding the feedback during the writers celebration...

B: Maybe then we could talk about the dialogue...

J: I was just thinking the same thing!

L: What dialogue?

B: Thinking what John?

 

The problems we experienced staying focused during this conversation made us question the effectiveness of a scheduled time for reflection. Difficulty maintaining focus occurs in verbal conversations as well, but participants can use non-verbal cues to reengage others in the conversation or to direct its flow. However, these affect-laden cues are missing from MOO conversations. As we found ourselves distracted, we had fewer ways of helping one another to become focused on the topic again or to understand the intensity of another’s need for a different conversational focus.

 

Summary and implications

We entered into this self-study not knowing what to expect when using on-line collegial dialogue. We found that MOO environments are highly conducive to collaborative self-study and are very engaging. To make the most of this medium, users must acknowledge at least four attributes. First, in order for conversations to move from being awkward and unfocused to being more specific, reflective, and fluent users must recognize and master the simple conventions of written conversation in a MOO environment. For educators who may be intimidated by emerging technologies, on-line dialogue in a MOO environment is user-friendly. Lisa and Becky entered this experience only with knowledge of E-mail and word processing. With John’s help they found this form of technology to be easy to learn.

 

Second, on-line dialogue in a MOO environment is conducive to in-depth discussion because the pacing of written conversation is slower than spoken conversation. Prospective users need to understand that a conversation will cover less ground but in greater depth. Thus, this form of self-inquiry is particularly helpful when studying a specific rather than multiple aspects of one’s teaching. "Less is more" is a characteristic of this approach.

 

Third, this medium can support the merging of theory and practice, a primary goal of self-inquiry. For us this occurred naturally and unconsciously. This is a primary goal of self-inquiry. Users must realize however, because individuals need to make meaning of their own personal context, teaching concerns will take precedence over efforts for a theoretical discussion. Thus, at the beginning of MOO self-study conversations, time should be allocated for participants to articulate their individual concerns.

 

Finally, because scheduling a specific time to meet each week isn’t always conducive to reflective thinking participants should recognize that conversations may not always be productive. In this medium, the lack of non-verbal cues requires users to work harder to make sure everyone maintains focus and is engaged in conversation.

 

In addition to the specific findings of our study, we have come to understand some larger implications related to using a MOO environment for self-study. This form of self-study may also alleviate isolation, a significant barrier often associated with self-inquiry. Educators who don’t have local colleagues with whom to study their teaching can collaborate with colleagues at other locations. Because we were committed to one another to do this on a weekly basis, this helped sustain us during those weeks when our schedules were overly demanding. Had we been trying to study our practice on our own, we might not have written or kept documentation as faithfully. This technology helped support our commitment. We found it attractive and convenient. On-line collegial dialogue also overcomes some problems associated with the time and cost of self-study. If educators want to analyze their conversations systematically, this process provides a hard copy at no cost and without the time usually involved in transcription. These written records leave a trail that wouldn’t normally exist in verbal conversations and in a form that makes it readily usable for coding and analysis on a computer.

 

We learned this method of self-study made a difference in our professional lives. We have more confidence in our ability to use new technologies for self-study, and each of us is currently integrating innovative technology in our classes. As a result of this experience, we have new questions to explore and stronger collegial relationships with one another. This method gave us the basis for understanding and challenging our beliefs that in turn influenced our actions. Looking forward, we recognize the need for our future research to focus on the impact of this method on student learning. We need to explore the linkages between our changing understandings, the impact of this knowledge on our practice, and most importantly, the influence on student learning.

 

References

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

DeMeulle, L., Anderson, R. S., & Johnston, J. M. (1996). Exploring synchronous on-line dialogue as a method of self-inquiry. In. T. Kvernbekk (Ed.), Considering the researcher as human being. Oslo: University of Oslo.

Hamilton, M. L. (1996). Mapping a landscape: Identifying and exploring self-study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Kaplan, S. N. (1990). Building better thinkers: The start-up stage. Learning 90, Februar.

YLoughran, J. (1996). Self-study in teaching and research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Munby, H. (1995). Gazing in the mirror: Asking basic questions about self-study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Olson, M. R. (1996). Collaborative reflections: Letter writing as a form of collaborative self-study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Russell, T. (1995). Giving authority to personal experience: Studying myself as student teachers study themselves. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Tennessee State Board of Education & Tennessee Department of Education. (1996). Teacher education policy implementation: Licensure standards and induction guidelines. Nashville: Author. John M. Johnston Early Childhood Education Department of Instruction and Curriculum Leadership University of Memphis Memphis, TN 38152.