TT280 conference usage

Participation and grade Effect of conference participation on grade achieved – statistical comparison covering 3 presentations

Choke points Are there points at which students tend to leave the course? Are there any solutions for that?

Communication A limited study of what kinds of communication students are undertaking

Moderators’ activities Some thoughts about what moderators are trying to achieve A study of a specific issue to illustrate what kind of communications moderators undertake

Overall figures Presentation:04E04J05B Total messages Mods total Mods proportion16.82%18.32%30.82% Total contributors Total students registered at start Proportion contributing42.07%48.73%49.71% Proportion more than 1 message33.58%40.37%40.38% Proportion messages from top %31.28%17.66% Ave number of messages from top Number contributing 1 message Proportion contributing 1 message20.18%17.16%18.77%

Comparisons Total messages Average OES 04E Average OES 04J Average OES 05B Average of averages

Non participants pass rate

Participants pass rate

Participants pass rate – single message

Failure to submit CMAs

Message content – one timers From 04E presentation ("I wouldn't normally dream of actually writing to one of these conferences, but I must find out if anybody out there is in the same boat as me. I read through the conferences and everybody seems to be so advanced in their knowledge of web sites. I wonder what half of you are doing on this course as I'm sure I signed up for "Web Basics". )

Message content – one timers

Are one timers reading? Total Message Histories approx 2m items Analysed Message History of 40 messages, 0.004% total Of the 68 one time posters, 14 had read at least one and 4 of the 14 had read them all The 14 all passed well Suggests reading messages has beneficial effect

More prolific posters Vladimir – 20 th place with 109 messages

More prolific posters Tatiana 2 nd place with 302 messages – 10% sample

Conclusions - stats A very strong, indeed almost unbreakable, correlation between degree of participation in the conferences and grade of passing. This is demonstrated even in the difference between posting one message and posting none.

Conclusions – causal? Data do not support any conclusion. Reasonable however to assume that participation causes greater understanding of the issues and requirements of the course.

Conclusions – effect of only reading messages sampling of message histories suggests also that reading without contributing also has beneficial effects

What are the mods up to while all this is going on…. See the “ModdingShared” ppt presentation

What are the mods up to A specific example: XX posted 57 messages in a very short space of time about the ECA in the just finished presentation Many expressed panic, most asked simple generic or specific questions, a lot were effectively asking what the answers to the ECA were I analysed our responses

XX’s questions An example: “I was hoping you mods could offer some advice on the report..Like what it means and stuff.” The messages contained well over 100 questions, max of 13 questions in one message

The responses - coding

The responses - tone Very similar style and language (5 mods) Even toned Did we show signs of irritation?

The responses - consistent Rarely gave her answers except where the answer was clear and she was really just asking for confirmation. When, at one point, she said it would be easier if the mods just said "correct", we gave her an explanation of why we weren't going to do that (that was coded as a 5).

The responses – good practice encouraging people to work things out for themselves (mostly 2 and 7, with 5 thrown in) – a distinctive style where we are not providing answers but pointing in directions people should be thinking of going encouraging people to make active use of the conferences and the resources (1 and 12) clear encouragement to use judgement (3 and 4) clear encouragement to take the initiative and do what the course material indicates (7 and 9) while at the same time giving help where it is clearly needed (2 and 11)

Student Engagement Minimum recommended Mean 37% of students

Consequences