Comparing Face-to-Face and Electronic Discourse: Issues and Questions Raised in a Research Study.

A study compared the discourse within a knowledge-building community in dual mediums: face-to-face meetings and electronic mail postings to a discussion list. Participants were faculty members and graduate students at a major university. The study focused on patterns of participation in both mediums, changes in these patterns, and possible effects of authority on participation within each medium. It examined issues related to analyzing electronic discourse and comparing participation in this medium with more traditional modes of social interaction, especially face-to-face conversations or discussions. Participants were active in both mediums, and the group worked collaboratively to build a series of Web-based resources for teachers over a 3-month period. Data included interviews, audio and video tapes of meetings, participant observations in a reflective journal, meeting notes, and e-mail posted to discussion groups. Results indicated, through discourse analysis, that changes in the management of face-to-face meetings over time reflected overall changes in authority within the group, initially run by the project leader and dominated by faculty members; later meetings showed more shared authority with graduate students having more opportunities to speak and ask questions. Findings suggest that, unlike face-to-face conversation, an e-mail conversation can only take place when an opening message is responded to by another participant, giving access to the "virtual floor" in retrospect. (Contains 12 references.) (Author/CR) ******************************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * ******************************************************************************** Comparing face-to-face and electronic discourse: Issues and questions raised in a research study PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY 4 TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Abstract Andrew Topper MSU College of Education 114 Erickson Hall East Lansing, MI 48823 E-mail: topperan @pilot.msu. edu U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Off ice of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) tEehis document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality.Andrew Topper MSU College of Education 114 Erickson Hall East Lansing, MI 48823 E-mail: topperan @pilot.msu. edu U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Off ice of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) tEehis document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. A research project compared the discourse within a knowledge building community in dual mediums: face-to-face meetings and electronic mail postings to a discussion list. The study participants included faculty members and graduate students at a major University who were under a contractual obligation to develop a product within a specified timeframe. The study focused on patterns of participation in both mediums, changes in these participation patterns, and the possible effects of authority on participation within each medium. The purpose of the study was to examine issues related to analyzing electronic discourse and comparing participation in this medium with more traditional modes of social interaction, specifically face-to-face conversations or discussions. The participants in this study were active in both mediums, and the group worked collaboratively to build a series of Web-based resources for teachers over a threemonth period. The data collected included interviews of participants, audio and video tapes of faceto-face meetings, participant observations in a reflective journal, meeting notes, and email messages posted to the discussion list. Face-to-face meetings were held twice-aweek and the agenda for them was set by the project leader. The electronic discourse was captured in a discussion list and archived for later analysis. Method A variety of discourse analysis methods (Coulthard, 1988) have been developed and applied to a wide range of social settings where interaction occurs. These methods typically analyze face-toface verbal discourse or conversation in relation to context (Erickson & Shultz, 1981; Goodwin & Duranti, 1992), dialogue (Burbules, 1993), or access to the floor (Edelsky, 1981; Shultz, Florio, & Erickson, 1982). Conversational analysis (Gumperz & Herasimchuk, 1972) was used to analyze the face-to-face interaction in this study, with a focus that emerged from the data on how power and authority were constituted in the discourse, represented as control over the meeting agenda, schedule, and topical changes within the meetings. The definition of "conversation" used in this study is taken from Burbules (1993):