J. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING RESEARCH, Vol. 29(1) 119-144, 2003
CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY IN A
POSTSECONDARY VIRTUAL CLASSROOM
VIRGINIA A. BIELMAN
LEANN G. PUTNEY
NEAL STRUDLER
University of Nevada
ABSTRACT
Interactional ethnography with a social constructionist perspective was used
as an orienting theoretical framework to investigate how a community of
learners was constructed in a postsecondary distance education class. The
question guiding this research was: How do the interactions of the participants
in an on-line classroom construct the social culture of a distance education
classroom? Three analytical components of this larger study are expanded
upon in this article: a) how the on-line conversational topic was changed to the
on-task analysis of the weekly readings; b) how the use of an object became
part of the class’s repertoire; and c) how members compensated for the lack of
face-to-face verbal and non-verbal conversational cues. Benefits of the study
include providing insights into how the on-line communications resulted in
student perception of being part of the classroom culture and providing
practical examples of on-line application of student-centered pedagogical
techniques.
INTRODUCTION
The impact of technological advances in education have created what Hiltz
(1994) terms a virtual classroom—one in which the students do not interact in
a face-to-face environment. The object of this study was such a virtual classroom:
a distance education class conducted entirely on-line. Research has identified
119
! 2003, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
120
/
BIELMAN, PUTNEY AND STRUDLER
several concerns with teaching and learning from a distance. Students often report
feelings of isolation and a lack of feelings of belonging to a community of learners.
Lack of communication with the instructor and fellow students has also been cited
as a source of problems (Berge, 1995; Carl, 1991; Wolcott, 1996).
This study used an interactional ethnographic approach with a social constructionist perspective as an orienting theoretical framework for conducting an
on-line classroom-based research study. From a social constructionist perspective,
the interactions of teacher(s) and students in a classroom construct a unique
classroom culture based on the characteristics of life in that classroom and
each culture provides different learning opportunities for members of that
culture (Collins & Green, 1990, 1992). Theorists such as Vygotsky and Piaget
stress the importance of learning as a social activity. Vygotsky most notably
theorized learning as a process of social construction through interaction and
in activity with others (Putney, Green, Dixon, Durán, Yeager, 2000; Vygotsky,
1997).
While the theoretical framework was one of social constructionism, the conceptual framework for this study was derived from a small group of qualitative
studies that used ethnography and discourse analysis to investigate how traditional
K–12 classroom participants’ interactions over time constructed a unique social
culture and how this culture influenced student learning (Floriani, 1993; Gutierrez,
1993; Heras, 1993; Lin, 1993; Putney, 1996).
Ethnography and discourse analysis of traditional K–12 classrooms have
addressed how teachers and students, with their actions and conversations
within the classroom, jointly constructed the culture of the classroom (Collins
& Green, 1992; Floriani, 1993; Gutierrez, 1993; Heras, 1993; Lin, 1993;
Putney, 1996). These studies have shown how members built a common
understanding of what they needed to know, produce, and understand in
order to participate as a member in the social group (Green & Wallat, 1979;
Heras, 1993). They also revealed how, through their interactions, members
developed both a cultural and a linguistic understanding of what it meant to
be members of this particular community (Collins & Green, 1990, 1992; Green
& Meyer, 1991; Heras, 1993; Putney, 1996; Putney & Floriani, 1999; Putney
et al., 2000).
This article represents key analytical components of a larger study which
investigated how a community of learners was constructed in a postsecondary
distance education class that used only computer-mediated communication. The
question guiding this research was: How do the interactions of the participants
in an on-line classroom construct the social culture of a distance education
classroom? Three analytical components of this study are addressed in this article:
a) how the on-line conversational topic was changed to on-task analysis of the
weekly readings; b) how the use of an object became part of the class’s repertoire;
and c) how members compensated for the lack of face-to-face verbal and nonverbal conversational cues.
CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY /
121
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
The subjects of this study were participants in a 16-week on-line freshman
Survey of Literature course taught during the Spring 1999 term at a college in the
western United States. Thirty-seven of the 55 students enrolled agreed to participate in the study. Both male and female students and various age and ethnic
groups were represented by the study’s participants. However, they were predominantly Caucasian females under the age of 30. More than three-quarters of the
students knew how to use a word processor, the World Wide Web, and e-mail at
the intermediate or advanced level. On the other hand, more than half had no
experience or were only beginners with the MOO and the listserv technologies
used in the course.
Data Sources
The data sources used for analysis and triangulation were: the class Web pages,
responses to a student survey and a debriefing questionnaire, and electronic
transcripts of on-line communication. The electronic transcripts consisted of
instructor-student e-mail, the class listserv communications, and the class’ MultiUser Dimension, Object Oriented (MOO) discussions. Only a few of the students’
surveys were obtained at the class orientation. The rest of the data for this course
were retrieved from the on-line source and archived for this research.
The evidence discussed at both the ethnographic and sociolinguistic level in the
results section focuses on interactions from the class MOO sessions. For purposes
of this article, the other data sources will not be examined in-depth, but serve as
background context for interpretation.
A MOO is a type of text-based virtual environment that enables groups to
interact in real-time (Ellsworth, 1994; LeNoir, 1998). MOOs allow participants,
called players, to construct their own rooms, where others may visit and communicate. Players view the environment as if they were entering a room for
class or other activity, which is similar to face-to-face situations. Players may
create objects within their environment with which players can interact. These
objects may be chairs, benches, slide projectors, etc. All players must be on-line
simultaneously and, with a few exceptions, each can see what all others are seeing
as it is posted.
Fourteen times throughout the semester, at a predetermined time, class
members met on the MOO and conducted group discussions of the weekly
readings and class events. Logs of these MOO sessions were electronically
recorded and posted to the class listserv for all to read and the researcher to
download and archive for this study.
122
/
BIELMAN, PUTNEY AND STRUDLER
Procedure
Interactional ethnography (Castanheira, Crawford, Green, & Dixon, 2001) was
used to make visible how the interactions of members of an on-line distance
education class constructed the characteristics of this community throughout the
semester. This two-step process first used ethnographic methods (Green, Dixon,
& Zaharlick, 2002) to identify characteristics of this community (i.e., patterns of
practice) that developed over the semester. Sociolinguistic discourse analysis
methods were then employed to investigate the moment-to-moment on-line
activities and interactions to obtain a closer look at the activities and practices
that shaped these community practices. These two steps combined to identify
the construction of insider knowledge that developed for “how to talk with
whom, for what purpose, in what ways, under what conditions, when, where,
and with what potential outcome” (Collins & Green, 1992, p. 91).
Ethnographic Analysis
Domain and taxonomic analyses (Spradley, 1980) were instrumental in looking
at the community as a whole from an ethnographic perspective. These analyses
seek to uncover cultural patterns of practice and their relationships within a
particular group. Spradley’s use of domain analysis organizes the elements of
cultural activity into cultural domains. Cultural domains are categories of cultural meaning that include other smaller categories. Further investigation using
taxonomic analysis shows how all the elements of the domain are related to each
other and to the domain as a whole.
Constructing a domain analysis worksheet is a first step in organizing the
elements that exist in the data into domains and discovering their relationships.
Spradley suggests using semantic relationships, such as sequence and means-end
to discover these domains and their cultural elements. Grouping elements which
are steps or stages in a larger task is an example of a relationship based on
sequence; whereas, grouping elements which are used to accomplish a particular
task is an example of a means-end relationship. Although a complete discussion of
domain and taxonomic analysis is beyond the scope of this article, Table 1
contains selected relationships among the cultural elements as revealed by the
domain analysis.
In building a domain, researchers decide whether to use folk terms or analytic
terms (Spradley, 1980) for the naming of the domain. For example, a Big Sign is a
folk term for the block-formatted text that appears as a result of a MOO command.
The focus of this article is on the items that are bolded in Table 1: kinds of Big
Signs, ways to initiate discussion of a reading and choose a reading in the
MOO, and ways to compensate for lack of face-to-face verbal cues.
An in-depth review of the on-line data was performed and event maps of
selected MOO sessions were created. As the analyst identified activities that
occurred, such as greeting fellow students, she organized them into phases,
CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY /
123
Table 1. Examples of Various Semantic Relationships in Domain Analysis
Relationship
Form
Domains
Strict inclusion
X is a kind of Y
Kinds of sharing
Kinds of events
Kinds of Big Signs
Kinds of interactional spaces
Kinds of student choices
Kinds of MOO participants
Function
X is used for Y
Ways to test student’s knowledge
Ways to get information
Rationale
X is a reason
for doing Y
Reasons for leaving the MOO early
Reasons for arriving late to the MOO
Sequence
X is a stage
in Y
Stages in completing scheduled weekly
activities
Stages in attending MOO discussions
Stages in responding to MOO discussions
via listserv
Means-end
X is a way to
do Y
Ways to initiate discussion of a reading in
the MOO
Ways to choose a reading in the MOO
Ways to compensate for lack of
face-to-face verbal cues
Ways to react to visitors in the MOO
Ways to direct conversation to an individual
in the MOO
sub-events, and events. This level of analysis represented the sequential flow of
the activity within the MOO sessions and oriented the analyst to the overall
patterns developing within the session (Putney et al., 2000).
By comparing events in multiple mappings throughout the semester, patterns of
activity or practice that related to perceptions and participation in a community of
distance education learners were identified. These key events were then subjected
to discourse analysis to see how the events were socially constructed and the
role that language played in that social construction (Kelly, Crawford, & Green,
2001; Tuyay, Jennings, & Dixon, 1995). In selecting key events, only one small
part of the conversation used in the construction of the community is being shown
(Floriani, 1993).
124
/
BIELMAN, PUTNEY AND STRUDLER
Sociolinguistic Analysis
The analysis of these key events used message units, action units, and interaction units (Floriani, 1993; Green & Wallat, 1979; Putney, 1996; Putney et al.,
2000) to investigate how the community characteristics developed. A message
unit is the smallest unit of conversational meaning (Green & Wallat, 1979). In
face-to-face communication, message units are bounded by contextualization cues
(Green & Wallat, 1979). These cues may include a speaker’s pause in a message or
a change in the tone of the speaker’s voice as he/she finishes a thought. In on-line
discourse, message units are delimited by punctuation and by the posting of the
message. In the transcript selections presented in this article, each line number
denotes a message unit. The message units tie together to form action units
which are separated by a single underline. Action units are groups of message
units which tie together to complete a topic and indicate what is happening in
the discourse (Putney, 1996; Putney et al., 2000). These action units tie together to
form interaction units which are separated by a double underline. Each interaction
unit represents a chain of actions that are a turn or set of turns in the discourse
(Floriani, 1993; Putney, 2000). Therefore, an interaction unit illustrates the groups
of related action units that compose the interactions of the participants in the
discourse (Putney, 1996). When it is necessary to keep the interwoven dialogue of
the MOO postings intact, the message units being analyzed are foregrounded in
bold and the divergent dialogue is backgrounded in gray.
Potentially divergent events—Not all discourse is linear, nor is all discourse
directly related to the task at hand. Some discourse can be perceived as divergent.
That is to say, it may have nothing to do with either current or any previous
conversational topic. Once a divergent topic is proposed in the conversation, the
collective has the option of ignoring the divergent event or responding to it.
In face-to-face conversations, verbal and non-verbal communications influence
gaining access to the floor (Castanheira et al., 2001; Kelly et al., 2001). In on-line
communications, the participants gain access to the floor only if the communication is responded to by another on-line participant. Postings that are not recognized by the group do not gain the floor (Topper, 1997).
Intertextualily—We also investigated the construction of the classroom culture by looking at how members’ resources are juxtaposed to create additional
resources for learning. These resources are referred to as texts. Texts, in this
perspective, are more than just printed material. They can be aural, oral, written,
or visual material (Green & Meyer, 1991). Texts can include: a member’s prior
experiences and knowledge; dialogue from a listserv, e-mail, or MOO communication; discussions with peers, the instructor, or others; readings from Web pages;
or information from other media, such as television, radio, presentations, concerts,
etc. This combining of texts to inform interactions with another text is referred
to as intertextuality (Bloome & Bailey, 1992; Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993).
CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY /
125
One set of criteria for determining if intertextuality exists is provided by Bloome
and Egan-Robertson (1993). An intertextual relationship must be socially constructed, interactionally accomplished, proposed, recognized, acknowledged, and
have social significance. Further examples of intertextuality are provided in
the results section.
CONSTRUCTING THE SOCIAL CULTURE OF A DISTANCE
EDUCATION CLASSROOM THROUGH CLASSROOM
PARTICIPANTS’ INTERACTIONS
The participants in this on-line community met the criteria for membership
put forth by Collins and Green (1990). They: a) acquired knowledge of the
meaning of the words, actions, and objects of the classroom; b) learned to
predict the events that would occur; c) came to understand the norms and expectations for participating in these events; d) were able to determine the roles
and relationships among members of the group; and e) fulfilled the rights and
obligations of group membership (Collins & Green, 1990). A few of the cultural
elements (Spradley, 1980) that exemplify these criteria are presented in the
domain analysis of Table 2.
Categorizing the examples into individual criteria is not intended to imply
that any particular event, action, or interaction only created one attribute of the
community. The construction of the community’s characteristics was interwoven
and events and actions often developed multiple community characteristics. Once
the data analyses identified what community characteristics were constructed
throughout the semester, the data were then subjected to discourse analyses to
make visible how the attributes of the on-line community were developed.
Results of the discourse analyses of the data that created three of these characteristics: how members initiated discussion of a reading and chose a reading in the
MOO, how they acquired knowledge of the meaning and learned to predict events
associated with the Big Sign, and how they compensated for the lack of visual and
non-verbal conversational cues, will be presented in the following section.
Initiating Discussion of a Reading and
Choosing a Reading in the MOO
Students who logged into the MOO at the assigned time and date did not
immediately come together as a group with both teacher and students on-line
simultaneously. The instructor logged into the MOO site, set the automatic
logging feature on, and logged off prior to the scheduled meeting time. He did
not log on again until students had had time to engage in informal pre-class
interactions. Giving students the opportunity to talk to each other informally
before and/or after class helped to build rapport among them and to decrease
feelings that they were isolated in an on-line environment (Wolcott, 1996).
126
/
BIELMAN, PUTNEY AND STRUDLER
Table 2. Excerpts from Domain Analysis of Membership Criteria
Membership criteria
Acquire knowledge of
the meaning of words,
actions, and objects of
the classroom
Examples
• Meaning of words and the actions which accompanied:
@describe, @quit, @name
• Writing a precis summary
• Using emoticons to show body language and feelings
on-line
• Using a Big Sign in the MOO
• Actions to compensate for lack of face-to-face
conversation cues
Learn to predict the
events that would occur
• When Big Sign was used
• During student-only pre-class time in the weekly MOO
sessions
• After the instructor joined them prior to starting the on-task
readings
• When sending e-mail to instructor (he responded
promptly)
Understand the norms
and expectations for
participating in these
events
• Access and participate in the interwoven conversations of
the MOO
• Access the class Web pages and follow hyperlinks to other
Web sites
• Post journals and respond to journals on the listserv
• Access, complete, and submit the on-line weekly quiz
• Analyze the weekly readings in the listserv and MOO
discussions
• Greet and be greeted by others in the MOO sessions
Determine the roles
and relationships
among members of
the group
• When initiating discussion of readings in the MOO and
choosing a reading to analyze
• Instructor as facilitator during on-task reading analysis, as
gatekeeper against intrusion by outsiders, setter of rules, as
source of technical information on Internet, as creator and
user of Big Sign
• Students as sources of assistance and sharing, as chooser
of next reading, as resources for discusssing and
interpreting the readings from the text, as resources for peer
evaluation of essay assignment
Fulfill the rights and
obligations of group
membership
•
•
•
•
•
Read weekly short stories from text and on-line
Post and respond to journals on the listserv
Complete and submit the weekly quiz
Follow the workshop ground rules for courteous interactions
Participate in the MOO sessions or comment on them in
the listserv
• Discuss and argue interpretations of the text on the MOO
sessions
CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY /
127
When the instructor joined the collective in the ongoing MOO session, he
allowed class time for questions and answers, an on-line technique used to enhance
interaction among the class participants (Wolcott, 1996). On many occasions, this
question and answer phase was followed by off-task informal dialogue in which
both students and instructor shared personal experiences and thoughts. Although
sharing experiences and using student’s experiences to draw them into discussions
could decrease student feelings of isolation (Wolcott, 1996), dialogue eventually
had to be shifted to the task at hand, discussing the weekly readings. The first step
was to change the focus of the dialogue from the off-task sharing to the on-task
discussion of the first reading of the week.
Focusing on On-Task Behavior
Selected dialogue from the first MOO session of the semester provided
evidence of how the focus of the off-task dialogue in the MOO was changed to the
on-task behavior of discussing the weekly readings. This dialogue is presented in
Table 3 by indicating the interaction units, speakers, action units, and message
units in the data. Dialogue chosen as key events is a part of the larger transcript of
the postings in the MOO sessions and, therefore, has been taken out of context.
As can be seen in Table 3, the interaction units of this dialogue relate to
changing the focus of discussion. In Interaction Unit 1, CarrieM, a student,
Table 3. Focusing on On-Task Behavior—Week 2
I
II
Interaction unit
Speakers
Dialogue in message units/action units
Suggests changing
focus to the readings
CarrieM
001. so What are we learning?
002. To MOoooo
003. To MUShhhh
004. to do a little dance?”
005. CarrieM dances
Prof
006. (holds up a big sign)
Editing and restating
the request
Prof
007. how about we talk a little bit about
this week’s readings?
Students respond
Agrees
CarrieM
008. YES
009. YES
010. YES
Challenges the change DianaJ
011. Are you bored with babies
already????
Agrees
012. ok
DeeJ
128
/
BIELMAN, PUTNEY AND STRUDLER
initiated the change of focus from off-task sharing of personal experiences and
family data to the on-task activity. Prior to this segment, the students and teacher
were discussing families and babies. When this focusing request was posted, it was
a potentially divergent event (Green & Wallat, 1979) because she suggested
moving away from the current social topic of families and toward the literature to
be discussed.
In the Interaction Unit II, the instructor supported this conversational shift
by editing the student’s request and restating it. This served to recognize and
acknowledge the request and direct student attention to the proposed change in the
focus of the conversational topic. Students then began to respond to the original
request, beginning with an affirmative reply from the requesting student. Another
student seemed reluctant to leave the previous topic when she asked if the
collective was ready to leave the preceding conversation on babies. A third student
okayed the shift in focus. The dialogue in Table 3 was socially significant in that
the collective now changed the focus of the conversation to the on-task analysis of
the weekly readings.
Constructing Community Attributes
In addition to the discourse that suggested the shift and responded to it, other
attributes of this community were being constructed. The instructor used a MOO
command to create a Big Sign to direct students’ attention to the readings. This
object was used throughout the semester by the instructor as a signal to capture and
direct the student’s attention, much as a chime could be used in a traditional
elementary classroom to get the students’ attention. Within this community, only
the instructor used a Big Sign. Over time, this object of the classroom came to be
recognized as a signal that a topic of importance was about to be addressed. More
discussion of the Big Sign appears in the next section.
One student used the on-line technique of capitalizing text to indicate shouting
her answer as: “YES YES YES.” The use of capital letters to indicate shouting is a
common on-line technique. By using this form to show her enthusiasm for starting
the readings, CarrieM incorporated it into the tools this community used and came
to accept as a norm. It became part of the language of the classroom (Lin, 1993).
Language of the classroom, as defined by Lin, is a “socially and interactionally
constituted system of discourse and social actions constructed through the actions
and interactions of teachers and students (Lin, 1993, p. 370).
The use of emotes, MOO software commands that can be used to show body
language and other non-visual conversational cues, was also present. When
CarrieM posted dances to the MOO, the group participating saw CarrieM dances.
This form of on-line body language accompanied her request to focus on the
on-task reading discussion.
Intertextuality as a community attribute—Key events showing intertextuality
are also present in Table 3. For instance, when CarrieM used an emote to dance,
CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY /
129
she was using knowledge she had gained either from her past MOO experiences or
from what she had read in the MOO help of DaMoo that explained how to emote
and what it does to produce the text using the emote on the MOO. The image she
created was one of a figure dancing as she said, “so What are we learning? To
MOoooo To MUShhhh to do a little dance?” She accompanied this message with
an emote that told others she was dancing. This served to soften her message so
others did not take it as a stem comment to get on-task.
When CarrieM capitalized her response to the instructor’s Big Sign (YES YES
YES), she was also using intertextuality. She used the text of what she had
previously learned from on-line reading and/or experiences about capitalizing
to show shouting and combined it with the text of what was said in the MOO to
produce this new text that reflected her emotions about starting the on-task
readings.
The instructor also used the text of his knowledge and past experience of using
objects in the MOO to produce the text of the Big Sign. He had used this signal in
past MOO’s as a focusing device to gain student attention and elicit compliance.
Student choice as community attribute—Once the conversational focus was
changed to the on-task activity, members had to decide which reading to discuss.
Table 4 contains this dialogue. The continuing message unit numbering pattern
shows the continuity of the dialogue.
As the direction toward the on-task activity was followed, another student
focused the discussion on which reading should be first. HildaT’s comment
signifies her acceptance of the change in focus and ties back to message unit 012.
It was at this point that the instructor gave the students the opportunity to choose
the reading they wanted to do first. Two students suggested different readings.
The intertwined messages in this synchronous medium may have resulted in
the response of the instructor agreeing with the first posting, probably before
the second posting reached him. The timing of the postings is lost in the textbased MOO logs. The best way to appreciate the fast scrolling that sometimes
occurs when messages are quickly posted one after the other is to be there. The
instructor’s comment in message unit 021 appears to be an attempt to control the
quick replies and is followed by his second request for the students to choose
where to begin.
The instructor and a student negotiate who chooses until HelenaA uses a
reading-specific question to focus the discussion on Young Goodman Brown
(ygb). When a student indicated it was the same as the instructor’s choice, he
responded that it was the students’ decision and it looked like Young Goodman
Brown had been chosen.
Providing students with choices is suggested as a student-centered activity
that can be used to build rapport among on-line class participants (Wolcott, 1996).
The instructor gave students the role and the right to choose the reading to discuss.
This opportunity was taken up by a student who took action and posted a
130
/
BIELMAN, PUTNEY AND STRUDLER
Table 4. Deciding Which Reading to Discuss—Week 2
Interaction unit
Speakers
Agrees and Expands
LindaM
Agrees (ties back to 012)
Dialogue in message units/action units
013. if you insist . . .
014. where do you want to start?”
HildaT
015. ya think
Teacher gives students
choice
Prof
016. where do you all want to start?”
Students and teacher
negotiating which
reading to start with
CarrieM
017. Goodman Brown?
DeeJ
018. explain the fall of the house of usher
to me
Prof
019. we can do goodman brown
CarrieM
020. yes both
Controlling the replies
Prof
021. how about one at a time
022. where do we start
Teacher and student
negotiate who chooses
DeeJ
023. you are the teacher
Prof
024. which is why I get the big bucks
025. so was goodman brown a dream or
what?
HelenaA
026. that part confused me
DeeJ
027. looks like your choice
Focusing on ygb
Tying back to negotiating Prof
who chooses
028. but you guys can decide
029. seems we’re going ygb
reading-specific question. This decided that Young Goodman Brown would be
the first reading to be discussed. Typically, choosing a reading would be the
instructor’s role. It is being taken up by the students in this on-line community.
The preceding discussion focused on the beginnings of particular patterns of
practice that were constructed by the members’ interactions when the conversation
was changed to focus on the on-task activity of discussing the weekly readings and
choosing the reading with which to begin. It also noted other developing practices
such as: student choices, student and instructor roles and relationships in starting
the on-task activities, use of a Big Sign, emotes, and capitalization in the MOO
environment. Analysis of this first MOO session is only the beginning step in
CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY /
131
making visible how the participants’ interactions constructed the characteristics
of this class, such as the roles, relationships, rights, and responsibilities of its
members. As these activities were encountered in similar events over time, they
were shaped and reshaped by the interactions of the class members.
Reshaping Community Attributes
The dialogue presented in Table 5 begins when the instructor logged into the
MOO in week eight. The students had already met their responsibility of focusing
on the weekly readings in general.
The instructor once again assumed the role of facilitator in the discussion and
choice of a specific reading, His comments in message units 002 and 011 solicited
individual feedback on the students’ thoughts about the stories: “what did you
come up with?,” “what did you dislike. . . .” In message unit 022, he facilitated
focusing the discussion on Metamorphasis and encouraging student involvement
by using personal pronouns: “let (us) get beyond the giant bug part and see what
you think.”
Several other characteristics of members’ roles, relationships, rights, and
responsibilities can be seen in this dialogue. In this conversation, DeeJ assumed
the role of spokesperson for the group. She informed the instructor of what
they were doing, told him we didn’t care for Metamorphosis, and responded to
HildaT’s comment which was directed to the instructor. When her use of “we”
was questioned by MarthaC, she backed up her statement by expressing her
own dislike of cockroaches. She used her personal experience/knowledge of
cockroaches when reading and discussing the reading from the text (life to text
intertextuality) to inform her comments in this situation. Students had the right
to voice their opinions of the stories and the responsibility to let others do so too.
Their relationship enabled an open discussion of their individual choices as it did
in many other situations.
In week 11, the instructor used a Big Sign to get the students to change the
conversational topic, as he did in the first MOO. The dialogue showed that a
student accepted the responsibility of choosing the reading to discuss when she
said: “Yes, let’s start with Bingo, the ending was strange.”
In the last MOO session, the students freely chose Matchimanito to discuss as
shown in the dialogue of Table 6. As in earlier MOO sessions, a student initiated
the discussion, the instructor facilitated student input and discussion, and students
freely expressed their opinions and thoughts.
A pattern of practice developed over the semester for this event which
shaped and was shaped by the ways members interacted. The roles and relationships of students and teacher in similar events became accepted practice.
Initiating the on-task behavior of discussing the readings was usually the
role of the students. The instructor would facilitate this topic change, sometimes with the use of a Big Sign. The instructor gave students the choice of
132
/
BIELMAN, PUTNEY AND STRUDLER
Table 5. Deciding Which Reading to Discuss—Week 8
Interaction unit
Speakers
Dialogue in message units/action units
Students are generically
discussing the readings
when the instructor logs in
DeeJ
001. we were just talking about which stories
we liked and didn’t like
Prof
002. and what did you come up with?
MarthaC
003. I liked all of them this week
SusanS
004. metamorphis005. disliked,
006. I liked the rest
Students discussing
Metamorphosis
Students discussing Bliss
HildaT
007. metamorphosis was weird . . .
008. bliss was ruined by an extra-marital affair . . .
009. garden party was good though
DeeJ
010. we didn’t seem to care for Metamorphosis
Prof
011. what did you dislike about gregor and his
situation?
HildaT
012. (HildaT exclaims) a giant cockroach . . .
013. ick!
DeeJ
014. bliss,
015. should not have surprised anyone by the
way she described her relationship with her
husband
MarthaC
016. what’s this ‘we’ business?
017. I liked the story from the first paragraph
DeeJ
018. anything cockroach is not good to me
HildaT
019. no,
020. bliss was not a surprise
021. I just didn’t like it
Prof
022. let’s get beyond the giant bug part and see
what you think
Text to Life
Intertextual relationship
Expanding to more
in-depth analysis of
Bliss by facilitating
the reading with which to begin and students came to assume this responsibility without urging as the semester progressed. Comparing the discourse of
these activities over time made visible the construction of the patterns of
practice which became recognized by class members within this on-line
community. These patterns were insider knowledge that assisted participants
in knowing who can do or say what, to or with whom, for what purpose, under
CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY /
133
Table 6. Deciding Which Reading to Discuss—Week 15
Interaction unit
Speakers
Dialogue in message units/action units
Student focuses on
readings/gives thoughts
CarrieM 001. Did anyone else see the hidden
meaning in both of our last stories . . .
002. I thought they were really symbolic
Prof facilitates
Prof
Ties to previous
discussion
Student answers
DonnaP 004. well,
005. my favorite stories for the semester
were the Horse Dealers Daughter and
the last one Matchimanito or whatever
it’s called
CarrieM continues
focusing on
Matchimanito
CarrieM 006. of life of strength
003. (Prof asks CarrieM) symbolic of what?
MarthaC 007. I saw LOTS of hidden/symbolic things
in amy tan’s story
008. for instance the wind
CarrieM 009. and the bear
what conditions, when and where, and with what outcomes (Collins & Green,
1992; Green & Meyer, 1991; Putney et al., 2000).
Data analyses also revealed how class members acquired knowledge of the
meaning of a particular object, a Big Sign, and learned to predict the events that
would occur when this object was invoked.
Using a Big Sign
Despite the lack of face-to-face communications, members of this community
developed knowledge of the meaning of words, actions, and objects in the classroom. Identifying what people do (cultural behavior), what people say (speech
messages), and what people make and use (cultural artifacts) is necessary to
make inferences about a culture (Spradley, 1980).
Evidence of a cultural artifact created on the MOO, the Big Sign, helped
students to acquire a knowledge of the meaning of an object in this culture. The
instructor posted a Big Sign whenever he wanted to focus student attention on
something, such as how to accomplish a task, time to end the MOO session,
starting a reading, etc. Expectations of how both the instructor and the students
were to participate in the event developed over time. The role of creating and using
a Big Sign was exclusively the instructor’s role; students never created a Big Sign.
134
/
BIELMAN, PUTNEY AND STRUDLER
Although in other instances students took up the role of the instructor, in this
instance they did not do so. Students acquired the knowledge that when the
instructor held up a Big Sign in the MOO he wanted to direct their attention to
something and they should follow his directions. The instructor expected that the
students would heed the information in the Big Sign and act accordingly.
The following example from week three is typical of a Big Sign that would
signal the end of the MOO. When students saw this posting, they began the practice of exchanging farewells and logging off of the MOO. The normal postings
have been italicized to show how they were interrupted by the Big Sign.
>CarrieM says, “well the symbolism is the discovery you mentioned earlier”
+----------------------------+
>
| it’s time for the 243 class to go as
>
|
>Prof holds up a big sign: | another one is coming in and we’re
>
|
>
| infringing on their time
>
|
+----------------------------+
>EllieT says, “We’ll start in just a few minutes, JoanF.”
The previous example showed how the Big Sign was used to focus student
attention on leaving the MOO. As this next example shows, a Big Sign was also
used to provide instructions to the students on how to accomplish this task.
By using this Big Sign, the instructor directed students’ attention to his directions.
Students who needed to know how to leave the MOO could now act on this information and use the appropriate command.
The housekeeper arrives to remove CarrieM
+----------------------------+
Prof holds up a big sign: | to get out type @quit
>
|
+----------------------------+
Victory_Guest teleports in.
The preceding examples made visible some of the ways members of this on-line
class constructed an understanding of the meaning of a Big Sign and its use
through patterns of practice that occurred over time.
Using discourse analysis to focus on the use of a Big Sign in the MOO sessions
made visible the purposes for which it was used and the pursuant student actions.
It also made visible the roles and relationships taken up in this situation. Questions
asked were: What are all the purposes of using a Big Sign? and What are all the
student actions which follow the use of a Big Sign? Answers to these questions
provided the basis for a domain analysis (Spradley, 1980) of Big Sign use
throughout the semester. Selected examples of these uses are in Table 7.
CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY /
135
Table 7. Creating Patterns of Practice for Using a Big Sign
Week
Purpose of Big Sign
Student actions following use
2
Direct attention and instruct
on use of @examine command.
Students use @examine prof to view
instructor’s description and comment on it.
2
Direct attention and change
focus of conversation to
on-task readings.
Focus changes and they begin to choose a
reading. (This dialogue was presented earlier
in Table 3.)
2
Announce is time to leave
the MOO.
Students immediately exchange farewells and
log off the MOO.
3
Announce is time to leave
the MOO.
Students immediately exchance farewells and
log off the MOO.
3
Instructs on how to leave the
MOO with @quit. (Given in
response to student query.)
Student thanks instructor, tells all goodnight,
and logs off of the MOO with the @quit
command.
4
Announce is time to leave
the MOO.
Students immediately exchange farewells and
log off the MOO.
7
Announce is time to leave
the MOO.
Students exchange parting comments and
farewells and log off.
11
Direct attention and change
focus of conversation to
on-task readings.
A student immediately chooses a reading to
start on and topic of conversation is changed.
13
Direct attention to change focus
of conversation to next on-task
reading. (Suggested by a
student earlier.)
Instructor supports student’s request to
change to next reading. After use of Big Sign,
students make a few more comments and
then begin discussing new reading.
By participating in these interactions, students developed expectations and an
understanding of members’ accepted roles and relationships when a Big Sign
was used in the MOO sessions.
Compensating for the Lack of Visual
and Non-Verbal Cues
In face-to-face interactions, visual and non-verbal cues accompany the
verbal message. As early as 1978, studies by Hiltz and Turoff (1978) found the
following to be missing from on-line communication, yet present in face-to-face
communication: a) vocalizations (sounds, like um, or you know); b) language
content (double meanings and slips of the tongue); and c) visual information. This
136
/
BIELMAN, PUTNEY AND STRUDLER
visual information can include: a) the sender’s general appearance, age, sex, race,
handicaps; b) facial expression; c) eye contact (direction, duration, and frequency); d) body movement (head nodding and other gestures that substitute
for words, pointing, nervous habits, posture cues, physical distance between
speakers), and other body language; and e) psycho-physiological responses such
as blushing, different rates of breathing, blinking, and yawning.
Domain analysis (Spradley, 1980) was used to identify ways these on-line class
members, both instructor and students, compensated for the lack of visual and
non-verbal interactions that are present in traditional classrooms. The means-end
semantic relationship (Spradley, 1980), which takes the form X is a way to Y,
was used to analyze the data and isolate the techniques used. An example,
of the means-end relationship is that exaggerated spelling on-line is a way to
compensate for the lack of visual and non-verbal interactions.
Results of analyses that made visible how members of this community
compensated for the missing conversational cues in the MOO are shown in
Table 8. As they used these techniques throughout the semester, they were
constructing the practices that came to be recognized by insiders as part
of the language of this classroom (Lin, 1993). Language of the classroom
is defined as the particular phases, actions, and words used by participants
in this setting, which build a common discourse (e.g., the use of emotes and
emoticons).
Emotes are verbs that the MOO software commands can include with the
message. Participants used exclaims, waves, laughs, bleeds, pouts, smiles, and
other emotes to indicate their feelings or show their actions. The message in the
posting would appear as: DonnaP laughs or LindaM exclaims.
Emoticons (Rezabeck & Cochenour, 1995) are graphics created with keyboard
characters that can be read sideways and used to show emotions. These are
sometimes referred to as smilies, but can show sadness, surprise, and other
emotions in addition to happiness. The emoticons commonly used by these class
members were the simple, easy-to-understand, happy face [:-) and :o)] and sad
face [:( and :-(].
Another technique was typing the message in all capital letters to indicate
shouting, such as “THANK YOU!!!!” and “NOT like a fiddle.” This method has
been used by many in e-mail and listserv communications to show the sender
wants to emphasize what they are saying as if they were shouting in real life.
Class members also used acronyms, such as lol (laughing out loud), kewl (cool),
BTW (by the way), and IMHO (in my humble opinion) to accompany their
messages. This technique has also been used by many in e-mail and listserv
communications to accompany their messages.
Three other techniques found in the data were: using exaggerated spelling, using
remarks that inferred an inflection in the tone of the student’s voice, and splitting
the message as if pausing for a breath in face-to-face communication. In MOO 15,
a student expressed her sadness that the semester was ending by using exaggerated
CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY /
137
Table 8. Compensate for Lack of Visual and Non-Verbal Communication Cues
Technique
Example
Emotes
laughs, smiles, waves, dances
Emoticons
:-)
Capital letters
THANK YOU!!!!!
Acronyms
IMHO
Exaggerated spelling
ssscccaaarrryyyy!!!!
Inferring a voice inflection
hehehehehe
Split message
LoriC....Prof....LoriC
Explain action in message
Cliche coming
Giving you a hand
Punctuation indicating pause
or end of thought
001. Tan is good.
002. At first I avoided her because she
was so popular,
003. but then I gave it a go and she
showed why she is popular,
004. because she tells a story and does
a good job of it.
Direct message to an individual by:
Use MOO software
Use person’s name in message
Infer by content of message
HildaT says to CarrieM
DeeJ, I think so too.
Clan of the Cave Bear example
:-(
LOL
BTW
Gotcha
spelling: “I don’t want it to end..... whaaaa.” In MOO 11, a student expressed
her feelings that going to (Japan) was “ssscccaaarryyyy.”
Students also used words to infer an inflection in the tone of their voices
when they typed: “I warned everyone hehehehehe” and “gotcha!”
The following example shows how the message was split into separate
postings, as if pausing for a breath.
LoriC says, “Prof ..... “
Prof asks, ”yeah, LoriC?"
LoriC says “I may be going to (Japan) with my job :-)”
138
/
BIELMAN, PUTNEY AND STRUDLER
The technique of explaining their actions within the message was also used
to set the tone of the message. In the following examples the comments have
been italicized.
“the wind is very much a (cliche coming) go with the flow kind of thing . . .”
“Applause (giving you a hand)”
“Chuckling back at LoriC”
The use of message units and action units to analyze the discourse made it
apparent that punctuation was important to signify a pause in the speaker’s
message and/or a pause at the end of a speaker’s thought. In face-to-face communication these pauses may be accompanied by body language or a change in
the tone of the speaker’s voice as he/she finishes a thought. Table 8 contains one
example showing the use of periods and commas. The following excerpt shows
the use of an ellipses, commas, and the end of a message as signified by posting
it. Each numbered message unit ends with punctuation indicating a pause. An
action unit (single underline) represents a group of tied message units that end
when the thought is completed.
001. I think in “Rules” it was showing that strength is not always obvious . . .,
002. it is quiet,
003. hidden,
004. not apparent,
005. but nonetheless strength
Directing a message to an individual in traditional classrooms is customarily
accompanied by visual and/or non-verbal cues. These cues can include actions
such as looking at the individual, pointing or nodding toward him or her, or
touching the person who is being addressed. These face-to-face actions are not
possible on-line.
In e-mail and in listserv communications (asynchronous media), messages can
be clearly addressed to the intended person or persons. E-mail messages are
directed to individuals. Listserv messages are received by all, but the addressee
in the message header clearly indicates for whom the message was intended.
In the real-time (synchronous) group communication of the MOO sessions,
there is no message header. Participants in the conversation can use a software
command to whisper to another and the message will be private. However, all
other messages are seen by the collective group on the MOO and later on the
listserv when the MOO log is posted there.
Data analyses revealed three ways that members of this community directed
their conversations to selected individuals in the group interactions of the
MOO sessions. First, the software provided one of the means to specifically
address the message. The instructor and the students frequently posted messages
such as: The instructor says to student 1 “that’ll be fine” or student 1 says to
student 2 “boys will do that.”
CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY /
139
Another way that participants directed their messages was by using the
individual’s name in the posting. In the first MOO session, a student was asking
another about her pregnancy when she posted: “How far along Susan?” Others
compensated by using student names when they greeted each other, such as “Hi
Carrie and Emeril.” As this posting by DeeJ shows, students also used this
technique to seek guidance from the instructor: “Prof, do you think that the actual
noises they hear from the storm were from the sister screaming to get out?”
The third method used was less direct. The sender of the message inferred to
whom the message was intended by the content of the message. This technique
inferred who was the message recipient and kept the message intact even though
it was threaded into another conversation. Even with overlapping dialogue, it
was still clear who was talking to whom. Table 9 contains an example of this
technique. Dialogue linked together by inference is foregrounded in bold and
the interthreaded conversation is italicized.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Building community in a virtual classroom was investigated using interactional
ethnography. Using this lens to view the interactions of members of a distance
education class provided insight into how insider knowledge was constructed in
Table 9. Inferring Message Recipient
Speaker
Message Units (numbered) tie to form
Action Units (single underline)
Action Units tie to form Interaction Units
(double underline)
Comments
DonnaP
001. I loved Clan of the Cave Bear and
the rest of that series
Posts comment on
MOO
Prof (To
MarthaC)
002. getting away from the kids?
003. grandparents are here for that
Interthreaded
conversation
MarthaC
004. I don
Ties to interthreaded
conversation
CarrieM
005. The clan of the Cave Bear?
006. who wrote it?
Replies to DonnaP
DeeJ
007. yes they are
Ties to interthreaded
conversation
DonnaP
008. Jane Auel I think
Replies to CarrieM
140
/
BIELMAN, PUTNEY AND STRUDLER
the moment-to-moment dialogue of class members. It revealed how the interactions were shaped and re-shaped by previous and future interactions to create
the patterns of practice that became characteristics of this unique community.
From a socioconstructionist perspective, the interactions of the teacher and students in this classroom constructed a unique classroom community based on
the characteristics of life in that classroom. This study supported a socioconstructionist perspective by providing evidence that social knowledge was
constructed by the members of the group.
After identifying what community characteristics were constructed by the
members of this community, this research investigated how three of these characteristics were built by the over-time interactions of the class participants. The
three characteristics were: how members developed an understanding of the
meaning of the Big Sign and the roles and relationships associated with use of
this object of the classroom, how the community’s patterns of practice developed
to change the conversational focus from off-task sharing to on-task reading
analysis, and how members compensated for the lack of conversational cues that
were not present in their on-line environment.
Educational Importance of the Study
This study should be beneficial to educators and researchers by providing a lens
with which to view the processes that shape the construction of the culture of
on-line classes. It will allow educators to become aware of how on-line communication may affect student perceptions of the social culture of the classroom
and ultimately, how it affects student feelings of belonging to or isolation from
this community. Insights into how on-line communication can result in student
perceptions of being part of the culture of the classroom may lead to better learning
environments for students in distance education classes.
The application of a sociolinguistic methodology to the data made visible the
instructor’s use of constructionist techniques to build rapport, increase interaction,
and decrease feelings of isolation (Wolcott, 1996). It is hoped that this study
will contribute to the research that supports on-line delivery of classes and use
of constructionist teaching techniques. It also should forge the path for other
researchers to take a closer look at the construction of community characteristics, in both traditional and on-line education, through the use of interactional
ethnography. This should provide a better understanding of teaching and learning
in both traditional and distance education.
Implications for Practice
Practitioners of distance education may want to apply the constructionist
practices made visible in this study to their own distance education endeavors.
In-situ examples of how the instructor of this class modeled these practices were
provided by the analyses. Many of the student-oriented techniques espoused by
CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY /
141
Wolcott (1996) that build rapport, decrease feelings of isolation, and enhance
interaction were made visible in this article. Some of Wolcott’s recommended
practices that were modeled by the instructor and made visible by interactional
ethnography are listed in Table 10.
Implications for Future Research
Interactional ethnography provides a promising framework for future
researchers investigating on-line education because it affords a methodological
and theoretical approach to what constitutes the unique environment of the on-line
community. It also affords a way to support and triangulate the ethnographic
findings with identification of how the over-time community members’ interactions created the environment. This study, and others like it, have the potential
to clarify the impact of social interaction in an on-line (or traditional) classroom
environment on student learning.
Table 10. Constructionist Practices Made Visible
On-line problem
addressed
Practice modeled (Wolcott, 1996)
Build rapport
• Provided students with choices
• Used student names
• Listened; was respectful and open to students’ opinions
and concerns
• Provided time for students to engage in informal
pre-class conversations
Decrease feelings
of isolation
•
•
•
•
Planned collaborative activities
Designed activities to help students learn how to learn
Encouraged student sharing of experiences
Used students’ experiences to draw them into
discussions
• Encouraged students to talk to each other informally
Enhance
interaction
• Incorporated active learning technique such as
discussion groups
• Built in time for questions and answers
• Assumed student participation
• Minimized teacher talk
• Asked questions, made it easy for students to answer
and ask
• Provided time before and after class for questions
142
/
BIELMAN, PUTNEY AND STRUDLER
By pairing ethnographic and sociolinguistic analysis, researchers and educators
can more clearly see how the characteristics of a classroom, either on-line or
traditional, are built by the moment-to-moment interactions of the class members.
As these moment-to-moment interactions are reinforced and/or reshaped
over time, patterns of practice that develop become characteristics of life in the
classroom.
The use of interactional ethnography to analyze the transcripts of on-line
dialogue from other distance education classes may be useful to provide insight
for other educators anticipating conducting such a class or to evaluate their own
teaching effectiveness (e.g., Did I successfully promote student involvement,
build rapport, decrease feelings of isolation?).
This study will strengthen the findings of similar research studies and broaden
the research base on building an on-line community of learners in a distance
education classroom. In addition, by providing educators with real-life examples
of constructionist techniques in action, these studies may assist them in building
rapport, decreasing student feelings of isolation, and increasing student involvement in their own distance education classes.
Interactional ethnography used in teacher education programs to demonstrate
the moment-by-moment dialogue construction and the over-time shaping and
reshaping of classroom community practices may also be beneficial to provide a
closer look at the sociocultural environment. By providing real-life concrete
examples of dialogue that show the application of collaborative learning, studentoriented instruction, and other educational approaches, teacher educators can
provide their students with opportunities to learn how these educational
constructs are put into practice. Just as theory informs analysis, so too, analysis
informs practice.
REFERENCES
Berge, Z. L. (1995, January-February). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22-30.
Bloome, D., & Bailey, F. M. (1992). Studying language and literacy through events,
particularly, and intertextuality. In R. Beach, J. L. Green, M. L. Kamil, & T. Shanahan
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Literacy Research (pp. 181-210). Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality
in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 305-333.
Carl, D. L. (1991, May). Electronic distance learning: Positives outweigh negatives.
T.H.E. Journal, 18(10), 67-70.
Castanheira, M. L., Crawford, T., Green, J., & Dixon, C. (2001). Interactional ethnography: An approach to studying the social construction of literate practices. Linguistics
and Education, 11(4), 353-400.
Collins, E. C., & Green, J. L. (1990). Metaphors: The construction of a perspective. In
D. G. Lux (Ed.), Theory into practice, 29(2), 71-77.
CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY /
143
Collins, E. C., & Green, J. L. (1992). Learning in classroom settings: Making or
breaking a culture. In R. T. Clift & C. M. Evertson (Eds.), Focal points: Qualitative
inquiries into teaching and teacher education (pp. 85-98). Washington, D.C.: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Teacher Education.
Ellsworth, J. H. (1994). Education on the Internet: A hands-on book of ideas, resources,
projects, and advice. Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan Computer Publishing.
Floriani, A. (1993). Negotiating what counts: Roles and relationships, texts and
contexts, content and meaning. Linguistics and Education: An International Research
Journal, 5(3/4), 241-274.
Green, J., Dixon, C., & Zaharlick, A. (2002). Ethnography as a logic of inquiry.
The handbook for research in the teaching of the English language arts (pp. 201-224).
New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Green, J. L., & Meyer, L. A. (1991). The embeddedness of reading in classroom
life: Reading as a situated process. In C. D. Baker & A. Luke (Eds.), Towards a critical
sociology of reading pedagogy: Papers of the XII World Congress on reading.
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Green, J., & Wallat, C. (1979). What is an instructional context? An exploratory analysis
of conversational shifts over time. In O. Garnica and M. King (Eds.), Language, children,
and society (pp. 159-187). New York: Pergamon.
Gutierrez, K. D. (1993). How talk, context, and script shape contexts for learning:
A cross-case comparison of journal sharing. Linguistics and Education: An International
Research Journal, 5(3/4), 335-365.
Heras, A. I. (1993). The construction of understanding in a sixth-grade bilingual
classroom. Linguistics and Education: An International Research Journal, 5(3/4), 275-300.
Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer
networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via
computer. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Kelly, G., Crawford, T., & Green, J. (2001). Common task, uncommon knowledge:
Dissenting voices in the discursive construction of physics across small laboratory groups.
Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 135-174.
LeNoir, W. D. (1998). Clueless newbies in the muds: An introduction to multiple-user
environment. The Clearing House, 72(2), 106-110.
Lin, L. (1993). Language of and in the classroom: Constructing the patterns of social
life. Linguistics and Education: An International Research Journal, 5(3/4), 367-409.
Putney, L. (1996). You are it: Meaning making as a collective and historical process.
The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 19(2), 129-143.
Putney, L. G., & Floriani, A. (1999). Examining transformative processes and practices:
A cross-case analysis of life in two bilingual classrooms. Journal of Classroom Interaction,
34(2), 17-29.
Putney, L. G., Green, J. L., Dixon, C. N., Durán, R., & Yeager, B. (2000). Consequential
progressions: Exploring collective-individual development in a bilingual classroom.
In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research:
Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 86-126). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Rezabeck, L. L., & Cochenour, J. J. (1995). Emoticons: Visual cues for computermediated communication. In Imagery and visual literacy: Selected readings from the
144
/
BIELMAN, PUTNEY AND STRUDLER
annual conference of the International Visual Literacy Assocation (26th, Tempe, AZ),
ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 380 096.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Topper, A. G. (1997). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discourse: Issues and
questions raised in a research study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, IL.
Tuyay, S., Jennings, L., & Dixon, C. (1995). Classroom discourse and opportunities
to learn: An ethnographic study of knowledge construction in a bilingual third-grade
classroom. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
19(1), 75-110.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational psychology (R. Silverman, Trans.), Boca Faton,
FL: St. Lucie Press.
Wolcott, L. L. (1996). Distant, but not distanced: A learner-centered approach to
distance education. TechTrends, 41(4), 23-27.
Direct reprint requests to:
Dr. Virginia A. Bielman
Community College of Southern Nevada
Henderson Campus H8B
700 College Drive
Henderson, NV 89015
e-mail: [email protected]