BUILDING UNDERSTANDING IN ASYCHRONOUS DISCUSSIONS: EXAMINING TYPES OF ONLINE DISCOURSE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v10i4.1744Keywords:
Asynchronous Discussion, Learning Process, Learning Outcomes, Discourse Analysis, CollaborationAbstract
This article describes a study exploring how students’ learning is reflected in asynchronous online discussion. The study examined how online discourse contributes to the learning process. In examining online group discussions using discourse analysis, five different types of discourse were identified: goal setting, reflection, connection, original reformulation, and re-direction. With the different types of discourse, we explained how each message or a threaded message facilitated the discussion, particularly in terms of collaborative efforts to achieve the goal(s). The nature of each type of discourse was illustrated, including how different strategies were identified in the data and how different results of discussion were demonstrated in the data. We also describe the methodological issues related to the analysis of online discourse and discuss implications for research and practice.
References
Bruckman, A. The future of e-learning communities. Communication of the ACM 45(4): 60–63, 2002.
de Jong, F., E. Veldhuis-Diermanse and G. Lutgens. Computer-supported collaborative learning in university and vocational education, In: Koschmann, T., R. Hall, and N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation, 111–128. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002.
Kemery, E. R. Developing on-line collaboration, In: A. Aggarwal (Ed.), Web-based learning and teaching technologies: Opportunities and challenges, 227–245. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, 2000.
Rogers, J. Communities of practice: A framework for fostering coherence in virtual learning communities. Educational Technology & Society 3(3): 2000. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/ifets/periodical/vol_3_2000/e01.html.
Islas, J. R. L. Collaborative learning at Monterrey Tech-Virtual University. In: T. Duffy and J. R. Kirkley (Eds.), Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education: Cases from higher education, 297–319. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004.
Kanuka, H. and T. Anderson. Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education 13(1): 1998. http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol13.1/kanuka.html.
Järvelä, S. and P. Häkkinen. Web-based cases in teaching and learning – The quality of discussions and a stage of perspective taking in asynchronous communication. Interactive Learning Environments 10(1): 1–22, 2002.
Anderson, T. Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions, In: M. G. Moore, and W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education, 129–144. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003.
Hill, J. R., D. Wiley, L. M. Nelson and S. Han. Exploring research on Internet-based learning: From infrastructure to interactions, In: D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 2nd ed., 433–460. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004.
Marra, R. M., J. L. Moore and A. K. Kimczak. Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis protocols. Educational Technology Research &Development 52(2): 23–40, 2004.
Alavi, M. and D. Duftner. Technology-mediated collaborative learning: A research perspective, In: S. R. Hiltz and R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks, 191–213. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005.
Järvelä, S. and P. Häkkinen. The levels of Web-based discussions: Using perspective-taking theory as an analytical tool. In: H. van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003.
Brown, J. S., A. Collins and S. Duguid. Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educational Researcher 18(1): 32–42, 1989.
Wenger, E. Communities of practices: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Salomon, G. No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dynamic interactional view, In: G. Salomon, (Ed.), Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational consideration, 111–138. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Pea, R. D. Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education, In: G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, 47-87. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Pea, R. D. The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 13(3): 423–451, 2004.
Barab, S. A. and P. A. Kirschner. Guest editor’s introduction: Rethinking methodology in the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 10 (1 & 2): 5–15, 2001.
Kirshner, D. and J. A. Whitson. Editors’ introduction to situated cognition, In: D. Kirshner and J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives, 1–16. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.
Salomon, G. Technology's promises and dangers in a psychological and educational context. Theory into Practice 37(1): 3–10, 1998.
Chee-Kit, L. Communication techniques, In: H. H. Aderlsberger, B. Collis, and J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook of information technologies for education and training, 45–56. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2002.
Inglis, A., Ling, P. and Joosten, V. Delivering digitally: Managing the transition to the knowledge media. London: Kogan Page, 1999.
Ryan, S., B. Scott, H. Freeman and D. Pate. The virtual university. London: Kogan Page, 2000.
Zumbach, J. and P. Reimann. Combining computer supported collaborative argument and problem-based learning: An approach for designing online learning environments, Paper presented at the Computer Supported Collaborative Argumentation Workshop at the CSCL 99 Conference, Stanford, California, December 1999. http://d3e.open.ac.uk/cscl99/Zumbach/Zumbach-paper.html.
Klemm, W. R. and J. R. Snell. Enriching computer-mediated group learning by coupling constructivism with collaborative learning. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology 1(2): 1996. http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/old/vol1no2/article1.htm.
Condon, S. L. and C. G. Čech. Functional comparisons of face-to-face and computer-mediated decision making interactions, In: S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives, 65–80. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 1996.
Davis, B. H. and J. P. Brewer. Electronic discourse: Linguistic individuals in virtual space. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1997.
Gee, J. P. Thinking, learning, and reading: The situated sociocultural mind,. In: D. Kirshner and J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives, 235–280. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.
Gee, J. P. An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method, London: Routledge, 1999.
Bruffee, K. A. Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge, 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University, 1999.
Gill, R. Discourse analysis, In: M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook, 172-190. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.
Mann, C. and F. Stewart. Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.
Yates, S. Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study, In: S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives, 29-46. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 1996.
Garcia, A. C. and J. B. Jacobs. The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on language and social interaction 32(4): 337–368, 1999.
Hutchby, I. Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2001.
Goetz, J. P. and M. D. LeCompte. Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York: Academic Press, 1984.
Patton, M. Q. Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.
Resnick, L. M., Pontecorvo, C. and Säljö, R. Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition, In: L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, and B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition, 1-20. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1997.
Gunawardena, C. N., C. A. Lowe and T. Anderson. Analysis of global online debate the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research 17(4): 397–431, 1997.
MacLure, M. Discourse in educational and social research. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press, 2003.
Wood, L. A. and R. O. Kroger. Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. and C. Webb. A critical inquiry into web-mediated collaborative learning. In A. Aggarwal (Ed.), Web-based learning and teaching technologies: Opportunities and challenges, 307-326. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2000.
Bereiter, C. and M. Scardamalia. The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987.
Levin, B. B. Analysis of the content and purpose of four different kinds of electronic communications among preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 32(1): 139–156, 1999.
Palloff, R. M. and Pratt, K. Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
Bell, P. Using argument map presentations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups, In: T. Koschmann, R. Hall, and N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation, 449–485. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002.
Harasim, L. What makes online learning communities successful?: The role of collaborative learning in social and intellectual development, In: C. Vrasidas and G. V. Glass (Eds.), Distance education and distributed learning, 181–200. Greenwich, CO: Information Age, 2002.
Garrison, D. R. Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult education: An analysis of responsibility and control issues. Adult Education Quarterly 42(3): 136–148, 1992.
Scardamalia, M. and C. Bereiter. Technologies for knowledge-building discourse. Communications of the ACM 37(5): 37–41, 1993.
Sutton, L. A. The principles of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunication 7(3): 223–242, 2001.
Ge, X. and S. M. Land. A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interaction. Educational Technology Research & Development 52(2): 5–20, 2004.
Marttunen, M. and L. Laurinen. Quality of students' argumentation by e-mail. Learning Environments Research 5: 99–123, 2001.
Miller, S. M. and K. L. Miller. Theoretical and practical considerations in the design of Web-based instruction. In: B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of Web-based education, 156–177. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2000.
Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. Assessing students in groups: Promoting group responsibility and individual accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2004.
Brandon, D. P. and A. B. Hollingshead. Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups. Communication Education 48(2): 109–129, 1999.
Kemery, E. R. Developing on-line collaboration, In: A. Aggarwal. (Ed.), Web-based learning and teaching technologies: Opportunities and challenges, 227-245. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2000.
Marjanovic, O. Learning and teaching in a synchronous collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 15(2): 129–138, 1999.
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
