“I Got Confused Reading It”: Using Backchannels to Collaboratively Build Meaning with Texts
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study explores the use of backchannels, real-time online conversations taking place simultaneously with spoken discussions (the front channel), as one approach to meaning-making through discussion. Using transcripts of front and backchannel discussions, we examine how undergraduate preservice teachers utilize backchannels to talk about class-assigned texts. Although previous research has suggested that backchannels can create distractions, our study found that participants within the backchannel groups were able to create meaning through their interactions. We used five types of talk (analytic, personal, intertextual, transparent, and performative) to aid in our analysis. While we found evidence of all types of talk in the transcripts, analytical talk dominated the conversations, suggesting that backchannels can indeed encourage close readings of texts. In addition, we found that the nature of the online environment created a sixth category of talk. This type of talk, which we called negotiation, allowed participants in the backchannel to define and react to the digital space they interacted within. Findings point to increased engagement in class discussion and the potential of backchannels as a way to effectively integrate technology into instruction.
Downloads
Article Details
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology (JoTLT) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in JoTLT.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in JoTLT.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoTLT publications, JoTLT encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoTLT, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in JoTLT.
References
Aagard, H., Bowen, K., & Olesova, L. (2010). Hotseat: Opening the backchannel in large lectures. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 33(3). http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/hotseat-openingbackchannel-large-lectures.
Anderson, G. L., Herr, K. L., & Nihlen, A.S. (1994). Studying your own school: An educator’s guide to qualitative practitioner research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Chan, S. Mitnick, S., & Yardi, S. (2006). Class chat: A tool for visualizing backchannel discussions. (Unpublished Master's Project). School of Information Management and Systems, University of California, Berkeley.
Clesson, K. M. (2011). Backchanneling, communication apprehension, and student engagement in discussion-based high school classes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Illinois State University, Normal, IL.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195.
Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2/3), 87-105.
Guernsey, L. (2003, July 24). In the lecture hall, a geek chorus. The New York Times, p. G1.
Harry, D., Green, J., & Donath, J. (2009, April). Backchan.nl: integrating backchannels in physical space. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1361-1370). ACM.
Hughes, J., Thomas, R. & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT – replacement, amplification, and transformation - framework. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp. 1616-1620). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Jacobs, N. & McFarlane, A. (2005), Conferences as learning communities: Some early lessons in using ‘back-channel’ technologies at an academic conference – distributed intelligence or divided attention? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 317–329. doi:10.1111/j.13652729.2005.00142.x
Johnson, S. B. (2009, June15). How Twitter will change the way we live (in 140 characters or less). Time, 173(23), 32-37.
Langer, J. A. (2000). Literary understanding and literature instruction (Report Series 2.11). Albany, NY: Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature.
Langer, J. A. (1989). The process of understanding literature (Report Series 2.1). Albany, NY: Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature.
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning. London, UK: McGraw-Hill.
Larson, L. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in e-book reading and response. The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 15-22. doi:10.1598/RT.64.1.2
Maftoon, P. & Ziafar, M. (2013). Effective factors in interactions with Japanese EFL classrooms. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 86(2), 74-79.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Mishra, P. (2008). Microblogging in the classroom II. Retrieved from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/2008/11/20/microblogging-in-the-classroom-ii/
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-93.
Palinscar, A. S. & Brown, A. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. Reading Teacher, 39(8), 771-777.
Pohl, A., Gehlen-Baum, V., & Bry, F. (2011). Introducing backstage: A digital backchannel for large class lectures. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 8(3), 186-200.
Poleon, E., & Krishnan, J. (2013). Digital Backchanneling: A strategy for maximizing engagement during a performance-based lesson on Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Teaching English with Technology, 4, 38-48.
Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, Technology, and Education. Presentation given August 18, 2006 as part of the Strengthening Your District Through Technology workshops, Maine, US. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/part1.html.
Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The Reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell, & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 1363-1398). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Schwier, R. A., & Seaton, J. X. (2013). A comparison of participation patterns in selected formal, non-formal, and informal online learning environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(1). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/709/355
Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C. & Hurwitz, L. (1999). Reading for understanding: A guide to improving reading in middle and high school classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shirky, C. (2002, Dec. 26). In-room chat as a social tool. Published in OpenP2P.com. Retrieved July 12, 2009, from http://openp2p.eom/lpt/a/3071.
Sipe, L. (2008). Storytime: Young children’s literary understanding in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sipe, L. (n.d.). Young children’s responses to picture storybooks: Five types of literary understanding [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://literatura.gretel.cat/sites/default/files/barcelona_lecture.pdf.
Toledo, C. & Peters, S. (2010, May). Educators’ perceptions of uses, constraints, and successful practices of backchanneling. In Education: Technology & Social Media (Special Issue, Part II) 16(1). http://ineducation.ca/article/educators-perceptions-uses-constraints-and-successfulpractices-backchanneling.
Vogler, J. S., Schallert, D. L, Park, Y., Song, K., Chiang, Y. V., Jordan, M. E., Lee, S., Cheng, A. J., Lee, J., Park, J., & Sanders, A. (2013). A microgenetic analysis of classroom discussion practices: How literacy processes intermingle in the negotiation of meaning in an online discussion. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(3), 211-239.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
White, S. (1989). Backchannels across cultures: A study of Americans and Japanese. Language in Society, 18(1), 59-76.
Yngve, V. H. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. In papers from the 6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 567-577. Chicago, IL: CLS.