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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of literacy research 2013-09, Vol.45 (3), p.211-239 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
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 |