Who you know and what you know: Student interaction in online discussions
AbstractThe dynamics of how students respond to each other during online discussions in a blended learning environment remains under-explored in the literature. How this technology shapes interaction when used in conjunction with traditional teaching methods and the practices of learners in these multi-site situations is a significant educational issue. Using mixed-methods, this study drew on social interaction constructs such as: exchange theory; reciprocity; and propinquity to explore practices within a discussion forum in a blended-learning setting. In addition to confirming these well-established constructs accounting for student-interaction, the issue of responding to others perceived as ‘knowledgeable’ was uncovered, and the mechanisms behind this particular response were examined further. The study reveals an assemblage of practices overlapping and inter-locking with the emergent learning experience, in both online and traditional spaces.
Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Yamagata-, L. C. (2009). Journal of the Learning Constructing Networks of Action-Relevant Episodes: An In Situ Research Methodology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 63–112.
Bonebright, D. (2010). 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111–120. doi:10.1080/13678861003589099
Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148. doi:10.1080/01587910500081376
Dringus, L. P., & Ellis, T. (2005). Using data mining as a strategy for assessing asynchronous discussion forums. Computers & Education, 45, 141–160. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.05.003
Dringus, L. P., & Ellis, T. (2010). Temporal transitions in participation flow in an asynchronous discussion forum. Computers & Education, 54(2), 340–349. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.011
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education : A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.
Fasso, W. (2010). Facilitated networking and group formation in an online Community of Practice Networking and group formation in an online community of practice. Australian Educational Computing, 25(1), 25–33.
Gouldner, A. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.
Hackman, R., & Annabi, H. (2006). A Content Analytic Comparison of Learning Processes in Online and Face-to-Face Case Study Discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00244.x
Hammond, M. (2005). A Review of Recent Papers on Online Discussion in Teaching and Learning. Journal of Asynchronous learning Networks, 9(3), 9–23.
Hew, K. & Cheung, W. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51, 1111-1124
Hewitt, J. (2011). Toward an Understanding of How Threads Die in Asynchronous Computer Conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589.
Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Liu, C.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50(3), 627–639. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.002
Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning system” for educators: A proof of concept. Computers & Education, 54(2), 588–599. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.008
Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49(2), 193–213. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.06.011
Nicolopoulou, K., Koštomaj, M., & Campos, A. (2006). How to address group dynamics in virtual worlds. Ai & Society, 20(3), 351–371. doi:10.1007/s00146-005-0027-0
Northover, M. (2002). On-line discussion boards – friend or foe. In A. Williamson, C. Gunn, A. Young, T. Clear (Eds.), Winds of change in the sea of learning: Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the Australasian Society for computers in learning in tertiary education, ASCILITE 2002, UNITEC Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand (2002), pp. 477–484.
Prell, C. P. (2012). Social Network Analysis: History, theory & methodology. London: Sage.
Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 52–59. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009
Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46(1), 49–70. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.006
Sorensen, C. K., & Baylen, D. M. (2004). Patterns of communicative and interactive behavior online. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(2), 117–126.
Suthers, D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2010). A Framework for Conceptualizing, Representing, and Analyzing Distributed Interaction. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 5–42.
Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: the space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351–366. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.03800.x
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin 63(6), 384–399. doi:10.1037/h0022100
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge university press.
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. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.007
Zhao, S. (2003). Toward a Taxonomy of Copresence. Presence, 12(5), 445–456.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements 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 this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).