| Subject: Texto da semana |
Author:
Junia Braga
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:01:41 12/16/02 Mon
In reply to:
paisoliveira (Sergio)
's message, "The Panopticon" on 07:30:30 12/16/02 Mon
Caros colegas,
Dando seqüência às considerações de Shirlene, Isis e Sergio, gostaria de sugerir ao grupo a leitura do resumo de uma pesquisa apresentada no WorldCALL 98 por Linda Mak. Learning of ESL on electronic networks: verifying the claims and the evidence no endereço: www.ruthvilmi.net/hut/Publications/worldcall.txt apresenta uma investigaçao relacionada ao texto da semana.
3. Teacher/student relationships: Liberation/Suppression?
3.1 Claims:
Many people have claimed that computer-mediated communication frees
participants from social or cultural bias (e.g. Harasim 1990; Rheingold
1992). It democratizes the classroom discourse, as teacher authority was
decentralized (Kern 1995). However, Hawisher & Selfe (1992) point out that
even when teachers set aside electronic spaces for students, their mere
presence still dominate the discourse of the conferences. In addition,
technopower and technosuppression exist between teachers and students in
international ESL student list (Warschauer & Lepeintre 1997).
3.2 Verification
To verify the above claims, my research questions are:
^Å Do teachers dominate the electronic discussion, in terms of quantity of
postings, discourse types, or tone?
^Å Is there any evidence of teachers suppressing students' expression of
opinions in these email groups?
All teachers' postings in the 12 discussion groups were searched. The
number of messages sent, length and discourse types were counted. The
scripts of the messages were examined for any signs of oppression.
3.2.1 Evidence: dominance
It is found that in terms of quantity teachers did not dominate the
discussion. Out of the 817 messages (about 150,000 words) sent, teachers'
made up less than 10%. The mean number of messages sent by teachers were
nearly the same as that by the students. Nor did teachers write longer
messages. The teachers were explicitly referenced in the students' mail
only 40 times in total.
3.2.2 Evidence: oppression
The main functions of these messages were to encourage and to initiate
discussion. The tone was mainly mild and polite, even in complaining. There
were a few cases of misconduct, complaints and conflicts among students.
However, in most cases, there was no evidence of teacher intervention,
oppression, or dominance.
3.2.3 Evidence: overall
When being asked why they participated in the email groups in a teacher
evaluation form, most teachers said they would like to keep an eye on
what's going on among their students. From the result of student evaluation
questionnaires, teachers were perceived as organizer/manager by the
majority of the respondents. The majority of respondents were happy with
the teacher's role.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 