You are here:

A Working Typology of Intentions Driving Face-To-Face and Online Interaction in a Graduate Teacher Education Course
Article

, Western Illinois University, United States

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 10, Number 2, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

The study examined the intentions driving face-to-face and online interaction in a graduate online course from the meaning perspectives of the teacher and students. Participants in the study were eight students and the teacher of a graduate teacher education course at a southwestern university. The theoretical framework of the study was based on symbolic interactionism and the methodological approach was based on the canons of interpretive research as Erickson (1986) laid them out. Data analysis identified several intentions driving interaction. These included discussing and exchanging ideas, negotiating aspects of the course, providing feedback, gaining access and status in a setting, and socializing. The discussion and data excerpts clearly illustrate that underneath the surface of what, appear as ordinary day-to-day interaction, there are multiple meanings that are constructed and assigned when participants engage in joint action. Those meanings and intentions are what drive interaction.

Citation

Vrasidas, C. (2002). A Working Typology of Intentions Driving Face-To-Face and Online Interaction in a Graduate Teacher Education Course. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 273-296. Norfolk, VA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 24, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  2. Cookson, P.S., & Chang, Y. (1995). The multidimensional audioconferencing classification system (MACS). The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(3), 18-36.
  3. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
  4. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New
  5. Hillman, D.C., Willis, D.J., & Gunawardena, C.N. (1994). Learner interface interaction in distance education. An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2) , 30-42.
  6. McIsaac, M.S., & Gunawardena, C.N. (1996). Distance education. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 403-437). New York: Simon& Shuster Macmillan.
  7. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mehan, H. (1980). The competent student. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 9(3), 131-152.
  8. Moore, M.G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
  9. Moore, M.G. (1991). Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1-6.
  10. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Internet Access in U.S. Public schools and classrooms: 1994-2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
  11. Ross, A.R. (1996). The Influence of computer communication skills on participation in a computer conferencing course. Journal of Education-a l Computing Research, 15(1), 37-52. Saba , F. , & Shearer, R.L. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1) , 36-57.
  12. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley& Sons. Tsui , A.B.M. , & Ki , W.W. (1996). An analysis of conference interactions on Telenex: A computer network for ESL teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(4) , 23-44.
  13. Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. Inter-296 Persichitte, Tharp, and Caffarella
  14. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  15. Wagner, E.D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29. Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the help and guidance provided by Dr. MarinaS. McIsaac, Dr. Mary Lee Smith, and Dr. Michael Blocher. Their feedback and support was important for the completion of this research.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Hearing a Chorus of Nods: A Connected Stance in Online Asynchronous Communication

    Susan Wegmann, University of Central Florida, United States; Joyce McCauley, Sam Houston State University, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (Mar 07, 2011) pp. 816–821

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.