A Microgenetic Analysis of Classroom Discussion Practices: How Literacy Processes Intermingle in the Negotiation of Meaning in an Online Discussion

Unlike previous research on computer-mediated discussions that has focused analysis on the final conversation as a completed product, this study was focused on the process by which the conversation was created. Using screen-capturing software, the on-screen actions of the nine participants in an onl...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of literacy research 2013-09, Vol.45 (3), p.211-239
Hauptverfasser: Vogler, Jane S., Schallert, Diane L., Park, Yangjoo, Song, Kwangok, Chiang, Yueh-hui Vanessa, Jordan, Michelle E., Lee, SoonAh, Cheng, An-Chih Janne, Lee, Ji-Eun, Park, Jeong-bin, Sanders, Anke J. Z.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 239
container_issue 3
container_start_page 211
container_title Journal of literacy research
container_volume 45
creator Vogler, Jane S.
Schallert, Diane L.
Park, Yangjoo
Song, Kwangok
Chiang, Yueh-hui Vanessa
Jordan, Michelle E.
Lee, SoonAh
Cheng, An-Chih Janne
Lee, Ji-Eun
Park, Jeong-bin
Sanders, Anke J. Z.
description Unlike previous research on computer-mediated discussions that has focused analysis on the final conversation as a completed product, this study was focused on the process by which the conversation was created. Using screen-capturing software, the on-screen actions of the nine participants in an online classroom discussion were recorded and analyzed for evidence of reading, writing, and thinking processes. Retrospective interviews were conducted with three of the student participants for additional insights into these processes. A triangulation of data sources revealed participants engaged in at least three distinct patterns of reading, writing, and thinking, with some participants fluidly moving between these patterns throughout the conversation. The three patterns were described as follows: (a) a methodical reading of most messages, and composing of responses occurring as the reader/writer thinks of it; (b) a coordination of reading, thinking, and writing, with careful revisiting of messages already read and deliberate crafting of responses; and (c) a complex orchestration of processes, with several reading resources consulted in addition to the conversation’s unfolding messages as well as composing processes that were interleaved with thinking and reading. This study provides clear evidence that the experiences of individuals in the same online conversation can vary considerably even as they contribute to a co-constructed publicly shared conversation.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/1086296X13499846
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1435630035</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1019598</ericid><sage_id>10.1177_1086296X13499846</sage_id><sourcerecordid>3080203341</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c284t-b1e7cf5ef94cd562c6d9fcb8d6168609003bffcdee6ceb654427b8e72e5a3eff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UEtLAzEQDqJgrd69CAueV5PNY5Njqa0PKnpQ8LZks5OS0jY10x76701ZERGcywx8j_lmCLlk9Iaxur5lVKvKqA_GhTFaqCMyYFKKUgtOj_Oc4fKAn5IzxAXNJakYEDMqnoNLcQ5r2AZXjNZ2uceARfTFeGkRU4yr4i6g2yGGuC5ek3WZCHhOTrxdIlx89yF5n07exg_l7OX-cTyala7SYlu2DGrnJXgjXCdV5VRnvGt1p5jSihpKeeu96wCUg1ZJIaq61VBXIC0H7_mQXPe-mxQ_d4DbZhF3KcfEhgkuFc8OMrNoz8q35NDgm00KK5v2DaPN4UHN3wdlyVUvgRTcD33yxCgz0uiMlz2Odg6_lv7n9wXIcm8y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1435630035</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Microgenetic Analysis of Classroom Discussion Practices: How Literacy Processes Intermingle in the Negotiation of Meaning in an Online Discussion</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Vogler, Jane S. ; Schallert, Diane L. ; Park, Yangjoo ; Song, Kwangok ; Chiang, Yueh-hui Vanessa ; Jordan, Michelle E. ; Lee, SoonAh ; Cheng, An-Chih Janne ; Lee, Ji-Eun ; Park, Jeong-bin ; Sanders, Anke J. Z.</creator><creatorcontrib>Vogler, Jane S. ; Schallert, Diane L. ; Park, Yangjoo ; Song, Kwangok ; Chiang, Yueh-hui Vanessa ; Jordan, Michelle E. ; Lee, SoonAh ; Cheng, An-Chih Janne ; Lee, Ji-Eun ; Park, Jeong-bin ; Sanders, Anke J. Z.</creatorcontrib><description>Unlike previous research on computer-mediated discussions that has focused analysis on the final conversation as a completed product, this study was focused on the process by which the conversation was created. Using screen-capturing software, the on-screen actions of the nine participants in an online classroom discussion were recorded and analyzed for evidence of reading, writing, and thinking processes. Retrospective interviews were conducted with three of the student participants for additional insights into these processes. A triangulation of data sources revealed participants engaged in at least three distinct patterns of reading, writing, and thinking, with some participants fluidly moving between these patterns throughout the conversation. The three patterns were described as follows: (a) a methodical reading of most messages, and composing of responses occurring as the reader/writer thinks of it; (b) a coordination of reading, thinking, and writing, with careful revisiting of messages already read and deliberate crafting of responses; and (c) a complex orchestration of processes, with several reading resources consulted in addition to the conversation’s unfolding messages as well as composing processes that were interleaved with thinking and reading. This study provides clear evidence that the experiences of individuals in the same online conversation can vary considerably even as they contribute to a co-constructed publicly shared conversation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1086-296X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1554-8430</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1086296X13499846</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Adult literacy ; Classroom Communication ; Cognitive Processes ; College Faculty ; Computer Mediated Communication ; Critical thinking ; Discussion (Teaching Technique) ; Educational Technology ; Electronic Learning ; Graduate Students ; Group Discussion ; Interviews ; Literacy ; Observation ; Online instruction ; Reading comprehension ; Reading Processes ; Seminars ; Video Technology ; Writing ; Writing Processes</subject><ispartof>Journal of literacy research, 2013-09, Vol.45 (3), p.211-239</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2013</rights><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Sep 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c284t-b1e7cf5ef94cd562c6d9fcb8d6168609003bffcdee6ceb654427b8e72e5a3eff3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1086296X13499846$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1086296X13499846$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21818,27923,27924,43620,43621</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1019598$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vogler, Jane S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schallert, Diane L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Yangjoo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Kwangok</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chiang, Yueh-hui Vanessa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jordan, Michelle E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, SoonAh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, An-Chih Janne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Ji-Eun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Jeong-bin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanders, Anke J. Z.</creatorcontrib><title>A Microgenetic Analysis of Classroom Discussion Practices: How Literacy Processes Intermingle in the Negotiation of Meaning in an Online Discussion</title><title>Journal of literacy research</title><description>Unlike previous research on computer-mediated discussions that has focused analysis on the final conversation as a completed product, this study was focused on the process by which the conversation was created. Using screen-capturing software, the on-screen actions of the nine participants in an online classroom discussion were recorded and analyzed for evidence of reading, writing, and thinking processes. Retrospective interviews were conducted with three of the student participants for additional insights into these processes. A triangulation of data sources revealed participants engaged in at least three distinct patterns of reading, writing, and thinking, with some participants fluidly moving between these patterns throughout the conversation. The three patterns were described as follows: (a) a methodical reading of most messages, and composing of responses occurring as the reader/writer thinks of it; (b) a coordination of reading, thinking, and writing, with careful revisiting of messages already read and deliberate crafting of responses; and (c) a complex orchestration of processes, with several reading resources consulted in addition to the conversation’s unfolding messages as well as composing processes that were interleaved with thinking and reading. This study provides clear evidence that the experiences of individuals in the same online conversation can vary considerably even as they contribute to a co-constructed publicly shared conversation.</description><subject>Adult literacy</subject><subject>Classroom Communication</subject><subject>Cognitive Processes</subject><subject>College Faculty</subject><subject>Computer Mediated Communication</subject><subject>Critical thinking</subject><subject>Discussion (Teaching Technique)</subject><subject>Educational Technology</subject><subject>Electronic Learning</subject><subject>Graduate Students</subject><subject>Group Discussion</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Literacy</subject><subject>Observation</subject><subject>Online instruction</subject><subject>Reading comprehension</subject><subject>Reading Processes</subject><subject>Seminars</subject><subject>Video Technology</subject><subject>Writing</subject><subject>Writing Processes</subject><issn>1086-296X</issn><issn>1554-8430</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1UEtLAzEQDqJgrd69CAueV5PNY5Njqa0PKnpQ8LZks5OS0jY10x76701ZERGcywx8j_lmCLlk9Iaxur5lVKvKqA_GhTFaqCMyYFKKUgtOj_Oc4fKAn5IzxAXNJakYEDMqnoNLcQ5r2AZXjNZ2uceARfTFeGkRU4yr4i6g2yGGuC5ek3WZCHhOTrxdIlx89yF5n07exg_l7OX-cTyala7SYlu2DGrnJXgjXCdV5VRnvGt1p5jSihpKeeu96wCUg1ZJIaq61VBXIC0H7_mQXPe-mxQ_d4DbZhF3KcfEhgkuFc8OMrNoz8q35NDgm00KK5v2DaPN4UHN3wdlyVUvgRTcD33yxCgz0uiMlz2Odg6_lv7n9wXIcm8y</recordid><startdate>20130901</startdate><enddate>20130901</enddate><creator>Vogler, Jane S.</creator><creator>Schallert, Diane L.</creator><creator>Park, Yangjoo</creator><creator>Song, Kwangok</creator><creator>Chiang, Yueh-hui Vanessa</creator><creator>Jordan, Michelle E.</creator><creator>Lee, SoonAh</creator><creator>Cheng, An-Chih Janne</creator><creator>Lee, Ji-Eun</creator><creator>Park, Jeong-bin</creator><creator>Sanders, Anke J. Z.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130901</creationdate><title>A Microgenetic Analysis of Classroom Discussion Practices</title><author>Vogler, Jane S. ; Schallert, Diane L. ; Park, Yangjoo ; Song, Kwangok ; Chiang, Yueh-hui Vanessa ; Jordan, Michelle E. ; Lee, SoonAh ; Cheng, An-Chih Janne ; Lee, Ji-Eun ; Park, Jeong-bin ; Sanders, Anke J. Z.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c284t-b1e7cf5ef94cd562c6d9fcb8d6168609003bffcdee6ceb654427b8e72e5a3eff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adult literacy</topic><topic>Classroom Communication</topic><topic>Cognitive Processes</topic><topic>College Faculty</topic><topic>Computer Mediated Communication</topic><topic>Critical thinking</topic><topic>Discussion (Teaching Technique)</topic><topic>Educational Technology</topic><topic>Electronic Learning</topic><topic>Graduate Students</topic><topic>Group Discussion</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Literacy</topic><topic>Observation</topic><topic>Online instruction</topic><topic>Reading comprehension</topic><topic>Reading Processes</topic><topic>Seminars</topic><topic>Video Technology</topic><topic>Writing</topic><topic>Writing Processes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vogler, Jane S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schallert, Diane L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Yangjoo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Kwangok</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chiang, Yueh-hui Vanessa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jordan, Michelle E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, SoonAh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, An-Chih Janne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Ji-Eun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Jeong-bin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanders, Anke J. Z.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Journal of literacy research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vogler, Jane S.</au><au>Schallert, Diane L.</au><au>Park, Yangjoo</au><au>Song, Kwangok</au><au>Chiang, Yueh-hui Vanessa</au><au>Jordan, Michelle E.</au><au>Lee, SoonAh</au><au>Cheng, An-Chih Janne</au><au>Lee, Ji-Eun</au><au>Park, Jeong-bin</au><au>Sanders, Anke J. Z.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1019598</ericid><atitle>A Microgenetic Analysis of Classroom Discussion Practices: How Literacy Processes Intermingle in the Negotiation of Meaning in an Online Discussion</atitle><jtitle>Journal of literacy research</jtitle><date>2013-09-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>211</spage><epage>239</epage><pages>211-239</pages><issn>1086-296X</issn><eissn>1554-8430</eissn><abstract>Unlike previous research on computer-mediated discussions that has focused analysis on the final conversation as a completed product, this study was focused on the process by which the conversation was created. Using screen-capturing software, the on-screen actions of the nine participants in an online classroom discussion were recorded and analyzed for evidence of reading, writing, and thinking processes. Retrospective interviews were conducted with three of the student participants for additional insights into these processes. A triangulation of data sources revealed participants engaged in at least three distinct patterns of reading, writing, and thinking, with some participants fluidly moving between these patterns throughout the conversation. The three patterns were described as follows: (a) a methodical reading of most messages, and composing of responses occurring as the reader/writer thinks of it; (b) a coordination of reading, thinking, and writing, with careful revisiting of messages already read and deliberate crafting of responses; and (c) a complex orchestration of processes, with several reading resources consulted in addition to the conversation’s unfolding messages as well as composing processes that were interleaved with thinking and reading. This study provides clear evidence that the experiences of individuals in the same online conversation can vary considerably even as they contribute to a co-constructed publicly shared conversation.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/1086296X13499846</doi><tpages>29</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1086-296X
ispartof Journal of literacy research, 2013-09, Vol.45 (3), p.211-239
issn 1086-296X
1554-8430
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1435630035
source SAGE Complete A-Z List; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Adult literacy
Classroom Communication
Cognitive Processes
College Faculty
Computer Mediated Communication
Critical thinking
Discussion (Teaching Technique)
Educational Technology
Electronic Learning
Graduate Students
Group Discussion
Interviews
Literacy
Observation
Online instruction
Reading comprehension
Reading Processes
Seminars
Video Technology
Writing
Writing Processes
title A Microgenetic Analysis of Classroom Discussion Practices: How Literacy Processes Intermingle in the Negotiation of Meaning in an Online Discussion
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T08%3A05%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Microgenetic%20Analysis%20of%20Classroom%20Discussion%20Practices:%20How%20Literacy%20Processes%20Intermingle%20in%20the%20Negotiation%20of%20Meaning%20in%20an%20Online%20Discussion&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20literacy%20research&rft.au=Vogler,%20Jane%20S.&rft.date=2013-09-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=211&rft.epage=239&rft.pages=211-239&rft.issn=1086-296X&rft.eissn=1554-8430&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1086296X13499846&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3080203341%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1435630035&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1019598&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1086296X13499846&rfr_iscdi=true