Navigating assigned roles for asynchronous online discussions: Examining participants’ orientation using conversation analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1512Keywords:
distance education, online learning, asynchronous discussion, higher education, computer-mediated communication, conversation analysisAbstract
Asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools, such as asynchronous online discussions (AODs), are widely used in higher education. Particularly for online-only classes the organization of AOD forums is of pedagogical importance, as these discussions are one of the major opportunities for participants to develop understanding of course content. This study examines participant orientations to a common AOD practice, assigning roles. The data were gathered from a graduate-level teacher education course that used forum discussion module included in Sakai. Using a conversation analytic perspective, data were examined to understand patterns in participants’ uptake of Discussion Starter and Devil’s Advocate roles in the forum. The findings demonstrate how assigning roles established a frame for participants’ understanding of course content and delimited possibilities for participation. Further, patterns of engagement related to these roles encouraged participants to distance themselves epistemically from the content of their posts. Specifically, students took up the Devil’s Advocate role in both expected and unexpected ways. While students did use this role as an opportunity to disagree with others in the forum, they also took up the role of Devil’s Advocate to pose non-critical questions as well. Pedagogical insights and the usefulness of conversation analysis as an analytical approach are discussed.
References
Author & colleagues (2016).
Adams, N. B. (2007). Toward a model for knowledge development in virtual environments: Strategies for student ownership, International Journal for Social Sciences, 2(2), 71-77.
Antaki, C., Barnes, R., & Leudar, I. (2005). Self-disclosure as a situated interactional practice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(2), 181-199. doi:10.1348/014466604X15733
Antaki, C., & Leudar, I. (2001). Recruiting the record: Using opponents’ exact words in parliamentary argumentation. Text & Talk, 21(4), 467-488. doi:10.1515/text.2001.008
Baym, N. K. (1996). Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(4), 315-345. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi2904_2
Ben-Peretz, M., & Kupferberg, I. (2007). Does teachers’ negotiation of personal cases in an interactive cyber forum contribute to their professional learning? Teachers and Teaching, 13(2), 125-143. doi:10.1080/13540600601152462
Brooks, C. F. (2013). ‘Don’t even trip, u did your part’: Analyzing community in online student talk. Classroom Discourse, 4(2), 168-189. doi:10.1080/19463014.2013.823349
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse. The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ferrara, K., Brunner, H., & Whittemore, G. (1991). Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication, 8(1), 8-34. doi:10.1177/0741088391008001002
Fisch, A. A., & Bennett, D. J. (2011). Independence and interdependence: An analysis of pre-service candidates’ use of focused assignments on an electronic discussion forum during the initial field experience. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 23-42.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Giles, D., Stommel, W., Paulus, T., Lester, J., & Reed, D. (2015). Microanalysis of online data: The methodological development of “digital CA”. Discourse, Context & Media, 7, 45-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2014.12.002
Goertzen, P., & Kristjánsson, C. (2007). Interpersonal dimensions of community in graduate online learning: Exploring social presence through the lens of systemic functional linguistics. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 212-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.06.005
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper.
Gunawardena, C. N., Flor, N. V., Gómez, D., & Sánchez, D. (2016). Analyzing social construction of knowledge online by employing interaction analysis, learning analytics, and social network analysis. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(3), 35-60, 96-97.
Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global on-line debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 395-429. doi:10.2190/7MQV-X9UJ-C7Q3-NRAG
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analyses of on-line discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115-152. doi:10.1023/A:1003764722829
Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 30-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. Structure of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 299-345.
Hmelo, C. E., Guzdial, M., Turns, J. (1998). Computer-support for collaborative learning: Learning to support student engagement. Journal of Interactive Learning,9(2), 107-129.
Hou, H. (2015). What makes an online community of practice work? A situated study of Chinese student teachers’ perceptions of online professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46(Supplement C), 6-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.005
Hutchby, I., & Tanna, V. (2008). Aspects of sequential organization in text message exchange. Discourse & Communication, 2(2), 143-164.
Jones, M., & Ryan, J. (2014). Learning in the practicum: Engaging pre-service teachers in reflective practice in the online space. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 132-146. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2014.892058
Killeavy, M., & Moloney, A. (2010). Reflection in a social space: Can blogging support reflective practice for beginning teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1070-1076. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.002
Knowlton, D. S. (2005). A taxonomy of learning through asynchronous discussion. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(2), 155-177.
Krutka, D. G., Bergman, D. J., Flores, R., Mason, K., & Jack, A. R. (2014). Microblogging about teaching: Nurturing participatory cultures through collaborative online reflection with pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 83-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.02.002
Lamerichs, J. M. W. J., & te Molder, H. F. M. (2003). Computer-mediated communication: From a cognitive to a discursive model. New Media & Society, 5(4), 451-473. doi:10.1177/146144480354001
Lapadat, J. C. (2007). Discourse devices used to establish community, increase coherence, and negotiate agreement in an online university course. The Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'Éducation à Distance, 21(3), 59-92.
Lester, J. N., & Gabriel, R. (2014). The discursive construction of intelligence in introductory educational psychology textbooks. Discourse Studies, 16(6), 776-791. doi:10.1177/1461445614546250
Levin, B. B., He, Y., & Robbins, H. H. (2006). Comparative analysis of preservice teachers' reflective thinking in synchronous versus asynchronous online case discussions. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 14(3), 439-460.
Loncar, M., Barrett, N. E., & Liu, G. Z. (2014). Towards the refinement of forum and asynchronous online discussion in educational contexts worldwide: Trends and investigative approaches within a dominant research paradigm. Computers & Education, 73, 93-110.
Meredith, J. (2017). Analyzing technological affordances of online interactions using conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 115, 42-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.001
Meredith, J. (2016). Using conversation analysis and discursive psychology to analyze online data. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 261-276). London: Sage.
Olesova, L., Slavin, M., & Lim, J. (2016). Exploring the effect of scripted roles on cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. Online Learning, 20(4), 34-53.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57-101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction: Sage.
Ravenna, G., Foster, C., & Bishop, C. (2012). Increasing student interaction online: A review of the literature in teacher education programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20(2), 177-203.
Rintel, E. S. (2010, November). Conversational management of network trouble perturbations in personal videoconferencing. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 304-311). ACM.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction (Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In G. Psathas (Ed.). Everyday language: studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 23-78). New York: Irvington.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The language of teachers and pupils: London: Oxford University Press.
Steensen, S. (2014). Conversing the audience: A methodological exploration of how conversation analysis can contribute to the analysis of interactive journalism. New Media & Society, 16(8), 1197-1213.
Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J. (2013). Introduction. In. J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.). The handbook of conversation analysis. (pp. 1-8). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stommel, W., & Koole, T. (2010). The online support group as a community: A micro-analysis of the interaction with a new member. Discourse Studies, 12(3), 357-378. doi:10.1177/1461445609358518
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 195–229.
Swan, K. & Shea, P. (2005). The development of virtual learning communities. In. S. R. Hiltz, & R. Goldman (Eds.), Asynchronous learning networks: The research frontier (pp. 239-260). New York: Hampton Press.
Tagg, A. C. (1994). Leadership from within: Student moderation of computer conferences. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 40–50.
Tseng, F.-C., & Kuo, F. Y. (2014). A study of social participation and knowledge sharing in the teachers' online professional community of practice. Computers & Education, 72(Supplement C), 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.005
Tudini, V., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2017). Computer-mediated communication and conversation analysis. In S. Thorne & S. May (Eds.), Language, education and technology (pp. 1-12). Dordect, The Netherland: Springer.
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95.
Whipp, J. L. (2003). Scaffolding critical reflection in online discussions: Helping prospective teachers think deeply about field experiences in urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 321-333. doi:10.1177/0022487103255010
Williams, K. M., Park, J. H., Gaines, R. E., Choi, E., Lee, J. J., Mattar, L. I., & Schallert, D. L. (2016). “I wonder if …”: The process of inquiry in support of students’ co-learning from online discussion. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 65(1), 365-383. doi:10.1177/2381336916661515
Wise, A. F., & Chiu, M. M. (2014). The impact of rotating summarizing roles in online discussions: Effects on learners’ listening behaviors during and subsequent to role assignment. Computers in human behavior, 38(Supplement C), 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.033
Wise, A. F., Speer, J., Marbouti, F., & Hsiao, Y. T. (2013). Broadening the notion of participation in online discussions: examining patterns in learners’ online listening behaviors. Instructional Science, 41(2), 323-343. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9230-9
Wise, A. F., Perera, N., Hsiao, Y. T., Speer, J., & Marbouti, F. (2012). Microanalytic case studies of individual participation patterns in an asynchronous online discussion in an undergraduate blended course. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 108-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.007
Wise, A. F., Saghafian, M., & Padmanabhan, P. (2012). Towards more precise design guidance: Specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 55-82.
Xie, K., Yu, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2014). Impacts of role assignment and participation in asynchronous discussions in college-level online classes. The Internet and Higher Education, 20(Supplement C), 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.003
Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2014). Guidelines for facilitating the development of learning communities in online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(3), 220-232. doi:10.1111/jcal.12042
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
