"The Power" of the Keyboard in Online Academic Conference

Smadar Bar-Tal*, Michal Schleifer**
* Lecturer, Center for Innovation and Excellence in Teaching, Levinsky College, Israel.
** Former Head, Literacy and Language Arts Division, Center for Educational Technology, Israel.
Periodicity:October - December'2018
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.15.3.14604

Abstract

Today, conferences for academic communities can provide continuous active participation in lectures through an accompanying academic-professional discussion written into a document known as an Internet ‘chat’. In this environment, participants are invited to react, ask questions, contribute knowledge, and form a learning community. This pioneer study investigates the character of a chat accompanying an online academic seminar. The aims of the written chat in this study were to create a digital environment which provides technical and social support, encourages intimate dialog among the participants, and might even serve as a kind of a new networking for a professional community composed by the participants and others. Qualitative data-collection of 827 speaking turns produced by 87 out of 283 seminar participants were analyzed using Anderson and Archer's characteristics of teaching, cognitive, and social presences (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). Findings revealed different presences representing the participants' different perceptions concerning their roles in the chat. Thus, the chat's environment provided technical, cognitive, and social support. Unfortunately, the attempt to create a new networking for further learning was not achieved. Practical proposals are suggested for effective management of online conference chats, pointing up the need to foster essential skills for participants and moderators, so that they can conduct an effective chat that stimulate learning and contains balanced presences.

Keywords

Digital Conference, Internet or Online Chat, Moderator, Presences, Networking

How to Cite this Article?

Bar-Tal, S., and Schleifer, M. (2018). "The Power" of the Keyboard in Online Academic Conference. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 26-39. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.15.3.14604

References

[1]. Albion, P. R., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Finger, G. (2010). Auditing the TPACK confidence of Australian preservice teachers: The TPACK Confidence Survey (TCS). In C. Crawford, D. A. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price & R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2010 (pp. 3772-3779). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
[2]. Anderson, L., & Anderson, T. (2010). Online Conferences: Professional Development for a Networked Era. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, New Carolina.
[3]. Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers' social and cognitive collaboration in an online environment. Language Learning and Technology, 10(1), 42-66.
[4]. Avni, E., & Rotem, A. (2013). Meaningful learning 2020 – Technology forming meaning. Aiming for Ethics Site. [Hebrew] Retrieved from: http://ianethics.com/wp-content/ uploads/2013/09/deeper-learning-2020-AI-.pdf
[5]. Barton, D., & McCulloch, S. (2018). Negotiating tensions around new forms of academic writing. Discourse, Context & Media, 24, 8-15. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.01.006
[6]. Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the Teaching, Learning, and Computing Survey: Is Larry Cuban Right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51), Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/91046/.
[7]. Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1973). Functional roles of group members. In R. M. Maslowski& L. B. Morgan (Eds.), Interpersonal Growth and Self-actualization in Groups (pp. 151-159). New York: MSS Information Corp.
[8]. Blau, I., & Barak, A. (2012). How do personality, synchronous media, and discussion topic affect participation? Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 12-24.
[9]. Carr, T., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (2017). Disturbances and contradictions in an online conference. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 13(2), 116- 140.
[10]. Cuban, L. (2001). Why are most teachers infrequent and restrained users of computers in their classrooms? In: J. Woodward & L. Cuban (Eds.), Technology, Curriculum and Professional Development: Adapting Schools to Meet the Needs of Students with Disabilities (pp. 121-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
[11]. Davis, B., & Harré, R. (1999). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 43-63.
[12]. Edwards, D., & Potter J. (2005). Discursive psychology, mental states and descriptions. In Molder, H., & Potter, J. (Eds.) Conversation and Cognition (pp. 241- 259). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13]. Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
[14]. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 1-19.
[15]. Gee, J. P. (2004). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education (pp.19-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, INC. Publishers.
[16]. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction. Ritual: Essays on Face Behavior. New York: Doubleday.
[17]. Hauge, T. E., & Dolonen, J. A. (2012). Towards an activity-driven design method for online learning resources. In Informed Design of Educational Technologies in Higher Education: Enhanced Learning and Teaching (pp. 101-117). IGI Global.
[18]. Hogan, B. (2010). The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions. Online Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 377-386.
[19]. Jelfs, A., & Whitelock, D. (2000). The notion of presence in virtual learning environments: What makes the environment “real”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(2), 145-152.
[20]. Kimura, B., & Shimabukuro, J. (2001). The Teaching in the Community Colleges (TCC) Online Conference. League TLC Innovation Express. Retrieved from: http://www.league.org/leaguetlc/express/inn0107.htm
[21]. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
[22]. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), (pp. 3-29). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group for the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.
[23]. Lev-On, A (n.d). Online Communities. Israel: Reisling. [Hebrew]
[24]. Lévi-Strauss, C. (2012). Tristes tropiques. Penguin.
[25]. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (n.d.). Definition of “affordance”. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/affordance
[26]. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK framework: You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14-18.
[27]. Murphy, E. (2004). Recognizing and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 421-431.
[28]. Nielsen, J. (2006). The 90-9-1 Rule for Participation Inequality in Social Media and Online Communities. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ participation-inequality/.
[29]. Peled-Elhanan, N. (2002). To learn the meaning of speaking with children: Several examples from personal and academic discussions. Scrips, 3-4, 147-188. [Hebrew]
[30]. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
[31]. Salmon, G. (2002). The five-stage framework and e-tivities. E-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning (pp. 10- 36). London: Kogan Page.
[32]. Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (2001). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Padstow, Cornwall: Black-well.
[33]. Shimabukuro, J. (2000). What is an online conference? The Technology Source. Retrieved from: http://technologysource.org/article/what_is_an_online_c onference/
[34]. Shonfeld, M. (2005). The impact of an online conference in education: A case study (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University).
[35]. Siemens, G., Tittenberger, P., & Anderson, T. (2008). Conference connections: Rewiring the circuit. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(2). 28-14.
[36]. Wang, Y. (1999). Online conference: A participant's perspective. T.H.E. Journal, 26(8), 70-76.
[37]. Whipple, R. (2006). E-body language: Decoded. T+D, 60 (2), 20-22. Retrieved from: https://webs.zd-cms. com/cms/res/files/371/T+DArticleFeb06.pdf
[38]. Woolley, D. R. (1998). The Future of the Web Conferencing. Retrieved from http://www.thinkofit.com/ webconf/wcfuture.htm
[39]. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage Publications.
[40]. Zhao, H., Sullivan, K. P. H., & Mellenius, I. (2014). Participation, interaction and social presence: An exploratory study of collaboration in online peer review groups. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 807-819.

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article
Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.