New Page 3

Carico, K.M., & Logan, D. (2001). The pull ofparticipation: Multilogues in online literature discussions.Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education[Oline serial] , 1 (3) . Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss3/currentissues/english/article1.htm

Note: In this article are audio clipsfeaturing two of the middle school participants. Chris and Charlie,now high school students but still living in the area, agreed toread and react to the article. You can hear their remarks byclicking on "Audio" after the related segments, beginning with thesection entitled, "Finally! The Real MOO!"

On two Thursday afternoons each semester, a groupof between 15 and 20 eighth-grade students at Blacksburg MiddleSchool (BMS) stays after school with teacher Donna Logan. For thefirst hour or so, they do homework, or read the novel they aresupposed to have completed by 4:00 this afternoon, or laugh andtalk with each other and with Ms. Logan as she tries to get readyfor the evening. They eat pizza she has ordered and drink sugarysodas. They are noisy and often silly, even the ones whoseclassroom presence was quiet, studious, and, in some cases, barelynoticeable. At 3:45 they throw their cups and pizza plates away,grab their novels, and hustle with Ms. Logan to the computer lab onthe first floor. There they will each log on to "A Room with aMOO," a virtual room in a virtual house, where they will await thearrival of their Virginia Tech (VT) pals, who at this point arefinishing up a day of work or student teaching or attendingclasses. While the middle schoolers wait, they will investigate theother rooms in the "house"—the kitchen, salon, library, orden, perhaps—and see who else is there or who has managed topass through before they arrived.

By 4:00 the university students will have droppedchildren off at sitters, checked on pets, snatched novels andnotes, and converged on their own campus, making their wayexcitedly to the computer lab where I await them, a bit anxious andquite excited myself. Class begins and we log on. As soon as thehook-up is successful, the students discover that most of theeighth-graders have already taken possession of the cyber-premises,and they, too, begin to move from room to room. For the next 10-15minutes they search for that one eighth-grader with whom they havebeen paired since the beginning of the semester, and, once findingher or him, catch up on the latest news until it is time to begin.Sometimes the search is in vain, and they are met with thedisappointing news that Mariah is sick, or Jared couldn't find aride home, or Sudi couldn't miss one more soccer practice.

When Donna and I know that almost everyone haslogged on, we pass the word that it is time to begin. The studentscheck their charts to determine the room in which they are to meetfor Round One, locate the room'first on a map we provide, then onthe site itself'and wait there until the host signals that it'stime to begin the chat. The labs, echoing noisily 10 minutesearlier, become still except for the clicking of computer keys; andfor the next hour and a half, with the exception of a five-minutebreak, the students sit transfixed, hunched over keyboards,communicating with their pals and peers.

They are "MOOing," a term derived from the word"MOO," or "multi-user object oriented environments" (Haynes &Holmevik, 1998). In this environment, students move from room toroom (wherever their group has been directed) in the virtual housethat was created by our technical assistant solely for our use.(Other groups on or off campus cannot have access to it without apassword, making the site a protected environment.) There theydiscuss multicultural literature with other students who have readthe same work. So, for example, while one group is in the studydiscussing Parrot in the Oven , another group is in thelibrary discussing April and the Dragon Lady . (See AppendixA: Novels and Short Stories Discussed in the MOOs.) And though wehave named only one room in our MOO the "dining room," in each roomwe hope to foster the essence of Atwell's (1998) "dining room tabletalk," where guests' discussions about books are a provocative mixof chatter, analysis, question, and opinion.

In many literature classrooms, large numbers ofstudents, social pressures of adolescence, and the perceived needto direct students toward an efferent, that is, informationgathering stance (Rosenblatt, 1978) sometimes prevent "real talk"(Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), that is, thekind of dialogue that draws out responses, stimulates thought, andchallenges attitudes and beliefs through expression, carefullistening, and response. It was in this new kind of educationalcommunity that we hoped to find the spaces for such dialogue toencourage voice, thought, exchange of ideas, and a stretching ofthe imagination.

The confluence of language and literacytheories, pedagogical practice, and technology have resulted inwhat might be called electronic discourse communities; ones foundedon contemporary social views of language, literacy and education;ones bulwarked by the new network technologies that become bothsimpler to use and offer greater access within and across networks;and ones that already are reaching out beyond classrooms and schoolbuildings and into a site where virtual communities exist incyberspace. (Butler, 1998. p. 558)

Our purpose was not to replace face to face (FTF)interactions but to see how, through this one medium, the learningcommunity of both groups of students might be broadened, thusoffering greater access as Butler discusses, access to a largernumber of ideas, perspectives, concerns, and increasedopportunities for dialogic experiences for students. We believedthat connecting these two groups, students whose interest in eachother was perhaps motivated differently, but matched in enthusiasm,would set the stage for vibrant conversations in which the studentswould gain new understandings of their own lives and of the livesof others.

Toward this end, the focus that literature wouldevoke discussions about difference was kept. We believed that theuse of multicultural and human rights novels, short stories, poems,and essays, would not only provide the students content but wouldbroaden the learning community even further to include voices fromliterature of the underrepresent ed andmarginalized. As we considered our goals, our main question evolvedinto this: Could we make online literature discussions aboutmulticultural books an effective means of pursuing ideas aboutdifference, inviting maximum participation, and leadingparticipants to a greater awareness and understanding of the issuesand their attitudes toward diversity, and the ultimate promotion oftolerance? This article focuses on the MOOs of one semester andshows what was discovered in response to our question.

Each year we follow a fairly simple pattern. At thebeginning of the semester, Donna recruits enough middle schoolstudents to match the number of students in my class. On the firstnight of class my students list information about themselves:hometown, major, hobbies and "favorites": foods, bands, books,authors, TV shows, movies, colors, and so forth. Donna's studentsread the information sheets and choose three people with whom theywould enjoy working. Donna and I then meet to pair up the studentsand ensure that each middle schooler is paired with one of thosethree people. We meet with our respective groups once a week: Donnameets the middle schoolers on a rotating schedule; I meet mine onour designated class night with a portion of the class devoted toweb pal issues.

During the semester featured in this article'Spring1999'the pairs read and discussed multicultural short stories froman anthology written for teenagers entitled Join In , aswell as related poetry, essays, and a novel on multiculturalism.Electronic formats were used that were believed would create alearning community in which each would learn from many people buthave special access to one. First, e-mail was the tool the pairswould use to get to know each other and to begin a practice ofdiscussing literature together. Second, an electronic bulletinboard called NetForum (1995) was the medium that gave individualsfrom both classes an opportunity to interact asynchronously withthe entire group around topics related to poems and the essays.Finally, the MOO was used as an electronic literature circle tobring together web pal pairs who read the same multicultural novel.Two MOOs were planned for that semester, the first oneapproximately one month into the semester on short stories fromJoin In and the second a month later on a novel.

The first MOO was set up for February 25 andfeatured a discussion of short stories from Join In .We felt lucky that afternoon: all four eighth-grade Englishteachers were available to act as hosts in the electronic rooms. Inaddition, one of the eighth-grade science teachers'a frequentvolunteer'agreed to host, and, to fill the last room, a formerstudent of mine who had MOOed the previous semester came to assist.By 3:50, the hosts, along with the middle schoolers, were at theirposts, waiting to begin. However, between the first and secondsemester, unbeknownst to Donna, the technology coordinator for thecounty put up firewalls, which did not permit the BMS students tomake electronic contact with the VT network; thus, Donna discoveredshe could not log on to the MOO site. Since the hosts and studentswere prepared, and since the school is close to the VT campus, wepiled into cars and went to the school for an unexpectedface-to-face encounter, what the students would thereafter refer toas the "fake" MOO. Instead of meeting in virtual rooms, the groupsmoved to each host's classroom to discuss the stories theyread.

Though somewhat disappointed, largely because mostof them had not MOOed before, the university students were stilldelighted to meet the pals face to face. Their relief was evidentin log entries, written later that evening, in which it was clearthat many'even some secondary education majors—had fearedthat they would not know how to interact and respond to anadolescent. In fact, the most striking feature of theirlogs'written after class that night'was the recurring notation oftheir great surprise. They had not expected the eighth-graders tobe as "intelligent," "deep," and "interesting in their differencesof opinions." A few students reported their pals as reluctant totalk, understandably so, they thought, due to the unexpectedsurprise of meeting in person and having to discuss literature faceto face with college students. More, however, were impressed withthe pals' willingness to engage and to interact easily with botholder students and with what my students judged to be "mature" and"intense" subject matter in the stories, for example, hatred, rape,and racism. For most, this was the beginning of what would be agrowing realization that they might not, after all, mind workingwith this age group.

Although Donna and I were relieved that we couldimplement a hastily conceived "Plan B," we were subdued by our owngrowing realization that even in the "most wired town in America"(Diamond, 1996), we would be frustrated, not always by the tools oftechnology, but by the unique context in a school system (Cuban,1999) and by a temperamental infrastructure. We knew all too wellthat if this happened when working with a more distant site, whichis indeed a future goal, Plan B would have been useless, and wewould have been extremely disappointed and frustrated with thewaste in preparation time and of opportunity. Since that time, wehave been vigilant (obsessed) with checking and re-checking beforeeach MOO to make sure the connections work.

To prepare for the second MOO, the middle schoolpals were to choose a book from a group of several possiblechoices, inform their university pals of their choice and set up areading schedule. Through e-mail, they were to discuss the bookthey were reading in the weeks before the MOO. Then one week beforethe MOO, Donna and I asked the students to prepare for thediscussion in the following ways: (a) by marking with sticky notesinteresting passages or passages illustrative of life in adifferent culture; (b) by considering how the structure of the bookhelped or hindered the reading process; (c) by focusing on thepositive and negative experiences the characters had as a result ofbeing part of two different cultures; and (d) by relating some ofthe previously mentioned experiences to their own lives or tosomeone they knew.

As they had prior to the "fake" MOO, 37 studentsgathered at 4:00 with six hosts—this time one eighth-gradeEnglish teacher, one eighth-grade science teacher, two countygifted resource teachers, the county's K-12 language artscoordinator, and me—and logged on. This time, after gettingspecial dispensation from the county technology supervisor topenetrate the firewall, the connection worked! After the palslocated each other and spent their 10-minute roaming time, theymoved toward their designated rooms and began the evening'sdiscussions; first, on a poem, "At the Electronic Frontier," thatillustrated the ubiquitous nature of technology, and second, ontheir chosen novels ( Appendix A ).

What we subsequently discovered upon reading thetranscripts of the discussions, as well as other data related tothe MOOs (process logs, e-mails, MOO analyses, interviewtranscripts, and, later, reflection papers), was intense engagementwith issues in the novels and participation patterns thatencouraged, informed, and challenged us.

Rosenblatt (1983) wrote about literature as amedium for exploration and the reading experience as a vital,creative act (1978). Following Rosenblatt, Pradl (1996) wrote aboutthe social nature of the reading experience, that in thetransaction with text and with others, new meanings are produced,resulting in the discovery of new ideas and new ways of reading. Ineach room we saw these theories played out; the participantscreated meaning together as they considered one another's responsesand questions regarding the novels.

In the kitchen, 13 topics were covered related toThe Joy Luck Club , a now familiar novel about four youngChinese-American women coming to terms with their mothers and withtheir own identities. The host began with one question'"Anybodyhave a burning thought to get us started?"'and from there thestudents took over the conversation. All the participants, with theexception of the host, who was never heard from again, began toshare their ideas and questions about the story. Figure 1 showsboth the issues and their distribution over a period of time.First, there is a flurry of conversation as everyone shares theirresponses to the books. Then the group gradually settles into oneor two related and substantial themes, which it continues untilmoving into a different topic. A similar pattern was observed inthe other rooms as well.

Number of Topics

Pagesof Transcripts

Topics : Emotional reactions to book; Opinions about malecharacters; Mother daughter relationships; Leaving the twins;Transitions immigrants face; Difficulty following numerouscharacters; What does it mean to be an American; Mothers/daughtersin other cultures; Rules in American vs. Asian cultures; Pendant/Life purpose; Knowing parents/ relating to them; Movie version; Theending.

In the den, students gathered to discuss Apriland the Dragon Lady , a novel with a story line similar toThe Joy Luck Club . It features a Chinese-American girl whostruggles to understand her place in American society, theimplications of her heritage, and her grandmother, a "dragon lady"who rules the household in the absence of a mother with seemingblindness to her granddaughter's modern situation and needs.Students focused on the characters, primarily Grandma and April,and the interactions between them that would, to the students atleast, reveal Grandma's entrenched racist and sexist attitudes. Twoquestions raised in this room speak to central issues in adiscussion of difference: "Can we judge Grandma when she's fromanother culture?" and "How can Grandma change?"

And so it went in the other rooms, with studentsdiscussing the above themes and others as well: the conflict causedin Dangerous Skies when the ideal world of the youngprotagonist is shattered by racism; the difficulties and pleasuresof growing up as an optimist in Parrot in the Oven ; theimaginary world of The Ear, the Eye, and the Arm ; and thedifficult decisions of the characters in The Bean Trees .Overall, each group discussed characters at length, including theirrelationships to each other and to society, relationships oftencomplicated by the bicultural nature of the homes. There were fewentries related to lower-level questions and responses; most wereclose examinations of the themes, characters, symbols, and issuesof the stories, as well as analyses of language, plot, andstructure. What is also clear, and what we found most promising, isthat the students shared with each other out of their particularknowledge bases which, in many cases, illuminated both plot andsetting for others in the rooms. ( Audio 1 )

Hey, diddle diddle,
Answer this riddle:
What in the world is a MOO?
It's a place we can talk
Without taking a walk,
And where everyone can share his or her view. (Regina, VTstudent)

Regina's light-hearted assessment from herreflection paper does indeed describe what it was to be part of aMOO environment and suggests consonance with Butler's (1998)research that the MOO provides spaces for fuller participation bymore people. "It's a place we can talk," wrote Regina, and in Appendix B , it is clear that a great deal oftalking took place; in fact, there was 100% participation. (For anexplanation of the analysis, see Appendix C .)Analyzed quantitatively, the data allowed comparison ofparticipation entries of BMS and VT students, as well as the hosts,to see if there were patterns of domination by any one person or byany particular group represented.

There are several notable statistics. First, thesheer volume of contributions made in a 35- minute period (e.g.,451 entries for the April and the Dragon Lady discussion)suggests the students were highly engaged, and our qualitativeanalysis showed us that they were engaged in the topics we hopedthey would discuss, as noted in the previous section. (For anin-depth discussion of the issues discussed in this MOO, seeCarico, 2001.) The lowest participation percentage, 4%, was from astudent who had to leave early.

Second, though the VT students did consistentlyrate higher in the number of entries overall, the percentages wereclose in most cases, suggesting that the middle schoolers wereusually able to keep up with the university students and felt freeto contribute in this setting and with this group. And consideringthe number of BMS absences—seven—the already slight gapbetween the two groups closes further. For instance, in theDangerous Skies discussion, by some happenstance, Chris wasthe only middle schooler present, so comparing BMS percentages toVT percentages does not tell the entire story. The number ofChris's entries—54—exceeded that of all but one of theVT students, his pal Julie, who made 59. ( Audio 2 )

Third, the hosts' percentages are in every case thelowest of the three groups represented, suggesting that thestudents were able to conduct the conversations toward fruitfulends with little direction from the host. Considering that eachroom had a host in some authority position and whose job it was toguide the conversation by suggesting topics, we were pleased thatthe hosts did not dominate, nor did they have to take over theconversation because it was veering off a productive course. (Audio 3)

	Number of Students	Female	Male	African American	Asian/Afri. American	Asian American	European American	Indian American	Pacific Islander
BMS	15/21	10	5	1	0	3	10	1	0
VT	22/22*	18	4	2	1	0	18	0	1

*Due to special circumstances, one student had begun the coursein the previous semester (and was assigned a pal then), and wascompleting the semester in the spring.

Students from both groups expressed a number ofreasons why the MOO experience was positive. The reasons fallgenerally into two descriptive categories: the MOO as anenvironment that supports freedom of expression and, in our case,the MOO as a space to talk about books with other people who liketo read.

Freedom to express . Most of themiddle school students indicated pleasure in being able to speakmore freely than in the regular classroom, without constraintsimposed either by classroom structures or by peer pressure. Theyvalued the opportunity to speak candidly, to express whateverthoughts they had about the book and to see that others valuedtheir thoughts as they received immediate responses. Nearly all ofthe VT students echoed the same thoughts, and those who did notsaid that they could see how someone else might think the same.

First, students enjoyed what they described as thefreedom to interact without what they perceived as constraints ofFTF interactions. Though the students were all recognized by firstnames during the discussions, students from both groups reportedfeeling anonymous, therefore, free to express themselves. Absentwas the sensation of being what they described as "stared at" or"gawked at" by other people, a practice they said inhibits theformulation of a response or question in face-to-face classroomconversations. And, 13-year-old Charlie's admission indicates thatthe anonymity works both ways: "I didn't have to look anyone in theeye," he said. ( Audio4 )

Absent was the pressure of thinking about how onelooks or acts. What one says becomes the focus. For adolescentswhose often new found ability to think outside themselves givesthem a painful awareness of what Elkind (1988) called "theinvisible audience," this anonymity is a relief. For many of theolder adolescents who populated my class, the same was also true,as Julie's log represents: "This is a happy medium for those whoare shy.... There weren't all these eyes on me hanging on my everyword. I could say what I really wanted to say and say it withconviction in a MOO." For Julie, whose fair-skinned cheeks grewrosy when I called on her, this was indeed true: her MOOtranscripts reveal a robust interlocutor, able to set forth strongstatements and argue her point intelligently.

Related to the issue of anonymity was the change inpower differentials. For the middle schoolers, the pressure ofhaving to say the "right thing" in front of teachers was noticeablyabsent. Although many of the middle school students were in a roomhosted by their classroom teachers, they reportedly sensed anunspoken permission to speak freely. Though there have beeninfrequent episodes of silliness in previous semesters on the partof new participants (e.g., pressing down the return key so that anentry is repeated several times in a row), this sense of freedomdid not seem to include an accompanying sense of license to"flame," to harass, or to intentionally disrupt the conversations.During this particular MOO, there was no talk that could beconsidered inappropriate in any of those ways. Nevertheless, themiddle school students got the distinct sense that they were actingin ways that would not be acceptable in school. "In the classroom,"Jerry said, "the teacher talks and asks questions." In the MOO, theteacher, he went on to say, "was not trying to be like a teacher."( Audio 5)

Charlie added, "I was able to bring up topics, saythings." Charlie's assessment was a true one. In the Joy LuckClub room with two other BMS students, five VT students, andthe county K-12 language arts supervisor acting as host, Charlieinteracted freely, often, and on various topics: making a joke,sharing personal responses, admonishing the group to "stay ontarget," and offering opinions about the characters, the symbolismof the pendant, and the notion of America as a mosaic.

My students, too, noticed the way the MOO seems toenable participation on an equal basis. In fact, the universitystudents participating in the discussion of Dangerous Skies, where Chris alone represented the middle schoolers, reportedsurprise upon learning that there was only one eighth-grader intheir room. Chris's contributions did not betray his age.

One university student's notation about the obviousdissolution of typical classroom structures characterizes not justhis groups' conversations but those in other rooms as well:

An opportunity to talk about books .Both groups commented on the enjoyment of talking about bookstogether in this environment. For the university students, theopportunity to discuss the novels with the adolescents and witheach other was, perhaps, the most significant aspect of the Web PalProject. They heard the responses and questions of various13-year-olds related to the novel, witnessed their interpretationsof a poem first-hand as they all tried to make sense of it togetherin Round One, and worked as partners with the kids and each otherto create a common and enjoyable "dining room table" session forthe group. For the middle schoolers, some of whom were lonersand/or on the fringes of their classroom's social structures, thebook discussions were an opportunity to, as Alan put it, "...talkwith people who care about books."

Even the students who did not prefer the formatadmitted'usually after analyzing the transcripts'that thediscussions generated in the rooms were thoughtful examinations ofthe issues and characters in the books. VT student Joyce wasdisappointed initially with what she deemed silly behavior of herclassmates in their Dangerous Skies room; back and forthteasing about the misspelling of a word went on too long, in heropinion. However, after an in-depth analysis of the transcripts,she made the following comment:

It seemed clear from the reports of other studentsin the room that Joyce was accurate in describing her reaction as amatter of taste; the teasing did not distract them. Their reportsconcurred with Joyce's in another aspect: they believed they hadraised significant issues. In discussing this difficult story abouttwo adolescents involved innocently in a racially charged incident,the students worked with each other to understand the actions aswell as the motivations of the characters, and in so doing,reflected on issues of discrimination that continue to trouble oursociety.

Students from both groups were surprised at thenumber of issues they were able to discuss, often in some depth.They expressed appreciation at the wide variety of opinions andinterpretations they were able to hear and the opportunity to "putit together," as one middle schooler said. VT student J.R.described this task of "putting it together" in his own terms:

J.R.'s vision of the MOO environment recallsPradl's experiences, recounted in Literature for Democracy(1996), in which he looked back at his own process of identifyinghis students' desires: "Simply allowing students the privilege ofowning their own literary responses was not enough to capture theirfull interest, for they hungered, most of them, to be part of aconstructive social enterprise" (p. 15). What we saw over and overin the MOO itself, in the MOO reflections, and in the many otherMOOs that we have conducted over the past three years, is thepleasure students take and the mutual benefit of being together ina "constructive social enterprise."

Emerging from the data were clues as to ways theMOO was not satisfying as a learning experience for some students.Concerns covered physical, emotional, social, and technicaldimensions.

Fear of being misunderstood . First,for some students, most clearly three middle school and twouniversity females, the anonymity that worked to free so many ofthe others to speak their minds, served to distance these youngwomen from their classmates and pals. They noted the absence ofobvious signals of body language that would indicate to others howto interpret a statement, what one student called the "motives" inwhat they were saying. "We don't know the people, so it's hard toknow how they'll take your comments." Sherri expressed relief thatshe had been able to meet her pal at the "fake" MOO. "You knowtheir sense of humor," she said.

"Technostress": An unwelcome sideeffect . In his analysis of networked classroomdiscussions, Bump (1990), discussed technostress as a by-product ofelectronic discussion, often resulting from covering intensesubject matter through an unfamiliar medium. Like Bump, we had fewcomplaints related to technostress, but the ones we had weresignificant. The two most frequently cited complaints were relatedto eyestrain and the fact that conversation is carried out throughtype. To resolve the first, we took one of the students'suggestions and inserted a break in the MOO schedule between thefirst room and the second. However, the other concerns'inability totype quickly and accurately, primarily related to spelling'is adefinite hindrance for some and not quite as easily solved. Thespelling concerns are somewhat ameliorated by the fact that fasttyping produces errors even among the best spellers, and ashorthand that the middle schoolers seem to use more readily thanthe rest of us does mask some spelling differences. Though it didnot help during the actual MOO, when Donna and I prepared thetranscripts for distribution on the website, we did correct glaringspelling errors, particularly in cases where we knew the studentswere sensitive about it. However, we knew that students wereanxious about this, as evidenced by their numerous apologies forspelling and corrections online.

The nature of the MOO as a text-based discoursethat takes place in real time has difficulties that go beyondtyping problems. A small number of students from both schoolsdescribed a feeling of stress at their difficulty in both keepingup with the conversation and contributing satisfactorily to it.Indeed, if there are large numbers of people in the room and ifthose people all "talk" fast, that is, type constantly, then theflow of topics can take several paths, making them difficult totrace and respond to. Since the screen scrolls after it fills upwith text, the topics seem to "disappear." Although a distractionfor only some students, these few were distressed and frustrated attheir inability to share opinions as often as they wanted or simplyparticipate when they chose to. (Note: Since most of the studentswho mentioned these concerns were from rooms with large numbers, wehave since tried to limit the number of students per room to seven,including the host.)

Although the previously mentioned concerns may seemto be a matter of personal preference, there is one sense in whichthey are clearly problematic, an aspect that did not emerge untilthe transcript analysis with the middle school students. As part ofthe analysis, the students highlighted each of their contributionsto the discussion and then categorized them according to suggestedcodes based on Beach's (1993) categories: factual, connecting,imagining, and evaluative. We then asked them to write what theybelieved to be the value of their contributions and what they mightlike to change. In response, the BMS students asked us if theycould add new codes: P for Personal; A for I Agree; and T for Typo.The desire for the 2nd category became apparent in middle schoolerCherie's written comment: "Well, in this MOO a lot of mycontributions were "agreeing" because people went so fast that Ididn't want to say the same thing twice and feel stupid, so I justagreed!" Knowing that her statement, "I agree" meant more than aaffixing a rubber stamp opinion to someone else's remark, shewanted credit for her contribution. Other students from both groupsconfirmed that they, too, had this difficulty.

The task of noting instances of agreement on thetranscripts is further complicated when considering the fact that Iask the VT students to critique their pals' contributions to thediscussions. It becomes important to understand and communicate tomy students that there are factors not visible on the transcriptsthat may have affected responses and participation patterns. Fromthis finding we have determined that we must ask questions inresponse to analysis rather than simply make judgements, and wehave encouraged our students to do the same.

As Bromley (1998) and Sclove (1998) cautioned andthe data from this study suggested, there is work to be done tomake the electronic MOO spaces truly democratic as well aseffective in meeting the goals we had for literature study.Students did indicate changes in understanding of the elements ofthe novel as well as appreciation for the characters' diversecircumstances; however, both Donna and I realized that we need morein-depth analysis and follow-up discussions of the MOO content withlarge and small groups. Students also indicated a need for furthernegotiation of talk in this written format. Time needs to be takenin class or in small groups to consider the effects of differingbeliefs, attitudes, and conversational styles on discussions,whether online or in person. Discussions concerning the effect ofpower differentials in the virtual spaces may be instructive inhelping us enhance our in-class discussions.

Next, the effect of the MOO cannot be judged apartfrom the other components of the project, which support it. Thelanguage of the students changed as they talked about the beliefstructures of others and their sometimes-new ability to understandand tolerate the differences, but those changes did not take placesolely because of the MOO. The new language came directly from anassignment they had done preceding the MOO, in which they examinedtheir own cultural lenses. The MOO gave them a place to exercisetheir beliefs. In addition, the positive nature of the MOO thatmost experienced was fostered, we believe, by the e-mail lettersthat preceded it. Finally, the more time we spent in our individualclasses on the project, helping students with letter writing, withthe reading, and with strategies for response, the moresatisfactory were their overall experiences.

Last, we were also to discover that our work in theMOO environment did more than illustrate the use of a newtechnology to reach a common instructional goal (Labbo &Reinking, 1999), for example, effective literature discussion. Itexpanded our notion of what effective literature discussions canbe: many participants were able, through the wonders of technology,to explore together literature and the ideas it generates in aforum that allowed and encouraged participation from every member.Therefore, though the project has required a major investment oftime, each semester we see greater gains and more improvement,re-confirming the value of the project. We believe it issignificant in the development of teachers who can talk aboutdifference, who can work with students of diversity (Willis &Harris, 1997), and who can begin to understand their own biases,lenses, and predispositions. We believe it is important in thelives of the middle school students who find excitement,encouragement, and opportunities to create meaning through storiesthey want to discuss with, as middle schooler Alan said, "peoplewho care about books." Finally, we have seen Belenky et al.'snotion of "real talk" come to pass in this virtual environment,talk that is full of energy, vitality, and possibility. Thus, wewill continue, hoping to add more distant sites that will expandour contacts, our ideas, and our possibilities even further.

Note: Donna and I are now engaged in working with athird site, in which the project is integrated into the curriculumof the eighth-grade participan t s. Wewill soon know if Charlie and Chris were right!

Beach, R. (1993). A teacher's introductionto reader-response theories . Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N.,& Tarule, J. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: Thedevelopment of self, voice, and mind . USA: Basic Books.

Bromley, H. (1998). How to tell if you reallyneed the latest technology. Thought and Action , 14 ,21-28.

Bump, J. (1990). Radical changes in classdiscussion using networked computers. Computers and theHumanities , 24 , 49-65.

Butler, W. (1998). Electronic discoursecommunities: Theory, practice, and research. In J. Flood, S. Heath,& D. Lapp, (Eds.). Research on teaching literacy through thecommunicative and visual arts . New York: MacMillan

Carico, K. (2001). Examining difference:Multicultural literature discussions online. Journal ofChildren's Literature , 27 (1), 23-31.

Cuban, L. (1999). The technology puzzle: Whygreater access is not translating into better classroom use? TheCouncil Chronicle , 9 (2), 23, 20, Urbana, Illinois:National Council of Teachers of English.

Haynes, C., & Holmevik, J. (Eds.). (1998).High wired: On the design, use, and theory of educationalMOOs . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Labbo, L., & Reinking, D. (1999).Negotiating the multiple realities of technology in literacyresearch and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly,34 (4), 478-492.

NetForum [Computer software]. (1995, 1996).University of Wisconsin Board of Regeants [Online]. Available:http://www.biostat.wisc.edu/netforum/home.html

Pradl, G. (1996). Literature for democracy:Reading as a social act . Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, thetext, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work .Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.

Rosenblatt, L. (1983). Literature asexploration (3rd ed.). New York: Modern Language Association ofAmerica.

Sclove, R. (1998). Richard Sclove: Thedemocratic uses of technology. Thought and Action ,14 , 9-18.

Willis, A., & Harris, V. (1997). Preparingpreservice teachers to teach multicultural literacy. In J. Flood,S. Heath, & D. Lapp, (Eds.). Research on teaching literacythrough the communicative and visual arts . New York:MacMillan.

Gallo, D. (Ed.). (1993). Join in:Multiethnic short stories by outstanding writers for youngadults . New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell.

Namioka, L. (1994). April and the dragonlady . Orlando: Harcourt, Brace & Company.

Code: The initials following each name provide ethnic andgender identification and are given in the order they appear in thetable. F: Female; M: Male; EA: European American; AA: AfricanAmerican; AsA: AsianAmerican; IA: Indian American; PA: PacificIslander

As soon as possible after the MOOs, Donna and I dolight editing of the transcripts, removing typos and as manyspelling errors as possible. The students access the transcriptsfrom the website and review them, noting their own participationpractices and determining what they can learn from the transcriptreading that they were not able to absorb during the MOO.

For the sake of comparison, all of the transcriptsare done in the same format (font, size, margins, and spacing). Theedited transcripts begin at the point the conversation about booksbegan in earnest, and each one represents approximately 35 minutesof talk. We eliminate comments referring to technical mistakes,(i.e., "whoops, I didn't mean that," or times when the studentswould enter blank spaces) and personal chatter unrelated to thetext. In preparation for this article, because I wished to showdegree of involvement in the conversation, I counted each separatecomment as an entry. In the example below, although Maxine's threecomments are all centered on her dislike for the grandmother, Icounted them as three entries, which represents her attempts tostay in the flow of the conversation and register her opinion. Thispassage shows three ways she disagrees with Grandma's choices andactions: she wanted her way, she showed more respect to hergrandson than to her granddaughter April, and she tried to dictateto her son whom he should marry.

MaxineP:" I didn't like the grandmother or the brothereither because they always wanted things their way"

MelindaH: "Well I wanted to take the brother and give a goodkick in the rear and the grandma needed to relax and let her granddaughter live a little."

AliciaM: "I've heard about some Chinese mother-in-laws froma friends and it was pretty accurate"

FlorenceH: "I think that the culture, Chinese American orChinese, was portrayed negatively because the overall negativity inthe book excluding the end when she finally got the jadebracelet.""

MaxineP:" I think that the Grandmother was mean to treat thebrother with more respect"

AllisonB: "I wonder why the grandmother was so stuck ontradition. And Harry was such a snob. He didn't care whether Aprilgot to do anything she wanted. He just wanted to hang out withJudy."

Hannah: "I mean there grandmother was totally being reallyrude to the daughter in the first part and I know that's sort ofhow she was but it was kinda bad for a first impression:)"

JimN: "Somebody describe for me the character traits thatHarry had that were not attractive."

MaxineP:" the grandmother was also trying to rule her son'slife about who to marry"

Author's Note : We would like to thank allof the participants for their work, their energy, and theirpatience. A special note of appreciation goes to Charlie and Chrisfor their time and thought.

Kathleen M. Carico
English Education
300—D War Memorial Hall
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA
kcarico@vt.edu