Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Enhancing student knowledge acquisition from online learning conversations

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article reports a theory-driven experimental study that evaluates the effects of an annotation functionality on online social interaction and individual learning outcomes. The central hypothesis of this study is that directly addressing a part of a text by annotating it and then connecting each annotation with its related discussion can decrease coordinative interaction costs and result in a higher-quality discussion that favors greater gains in individual learning outcomes. To reach our objective, we carried out a theory-driven experimental study that compares two versions of an anchored discussion system: one with annotation functionality and one without it, both displaying the learning material side by side with its associated discussion in one window. Participants were 106 students enrolled in two sections of a blended-format course in health education. We assigned each section to a software condition. The examination of students’ online social interaction centered on a fine-grained content analysis of coordination and knowledge construction activities as well as sequential analysis of knowledge construction activities. The results indicate that annotation functionality decreased coordinative interaction costs and stimulated more elaborated discussions that favored greater gains in individual learning outcomes. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman, M. S., & Halverson, C. (2004). Sharing expertise: The next step for knowledge management. In V. Wulf & M. H. Huysman (Eds.), Social capital and information technology (pp. 273–299). Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alamargot, D., & Andriessen, J. (2002). The “power” of text production activity in collaborative modelling: Nine recommendations to make a computer supported situation work. In M. Baker, P. Brna, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model (pp. 275–302). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amadieu, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Prior knowledge in learning from a non-linear electronic document: Disorientation and coherence of the reading sequences. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 381–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J., & Sandberg, J. (1999). Where is education heading and how about AI. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 130–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R., & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 31–63). Elsevier Science Publishers.

  • Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 156–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M. & Simons, P. R. J. (1995). Leren en instructie: Psychologie van de leerling en het leerproces [Learning and instruction: Psychology of the learner and his learning process]. Assen: Dekker & Van de Vegt.

  • Brush, B. A. J., Bargeron, D., Grudin, J., Borning, A., & Gupta, A. (2002). Supporting interaction outside of class: Anchored discussion vs. discussion boards. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 425–434). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 115–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlon, S., Woods, D. B., Berg, B., Claywell, L., LeDuc, K., Marcisz, N., et al. (2012). The community of inquiry instrument: Validation and results in online health care disciplines. Computers in Education, 59(2), 215–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjects, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. (2001). Stimulation collaboration and discussion in online learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 4(2), 119–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobos, R., & Pifarré, M. (2008). Collaborative knowledge construction in the web supported by the KnowCat system. Computers in Education, 50(3), 962–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, F., Kollöffel, B., Van der Meijden, H., Staarman, J. K., & Janssen, J. (2005). Regulative processes in individual, 3D and computer supported cooperative learning contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 645–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennen, V. (2008). Looking for evidence of learning: Assessment and analysis methods for online discourse. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 205–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Bétrancourt, M. (2006). Collaboration load. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Research and theory (pp. 141–165). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding, N. (2009). Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Computers in Education, 52(2), 509–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelmann, T., Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., & Buder, J. (2009). Knowledge awareness in CSCL: A psychological perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 949–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 463–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eryilmaz, E., Alrushiedat, N., Kasemvilas, S., Mary, J., & Van der Pol, J. (2009). The effect of anchoring online discussion on collaboration and cognitive load. In: Proceedings of 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, California.

  • Eryilmaz, E., Ryan, T., Van der Pol, J., Kasemvilas, S., & Mary, J. (2013). Fostering quality and flow of online learning conversations by artifact-centered discourse systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(1).

  • Fiedler, K., Schott, M., & Meiser, T. (2011). What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231–1236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Innes, M. C., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Sharing and constructing perspectives in web-based conferencing. Computers in Education, 47(4), 433–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(1–2), 41–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Manuscript submitted for publication. http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.

  • Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond baron and kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, T., & Kienle, A. (2008). Context-oriented communication and the design of computer-supported discursive learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 273–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, S. R., Coppola, N., Rotter, N., & Turoff, M. (2000). Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for the effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure, multi-method approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 103–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamaludin, A., Chee, Y., & Mei Lin Ho, C. (2009). Fostering argumentative knowledge construction through enactive role play in Second Life. Computers in Education, 53(2), 317–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1105–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Paas, F. (2010). Making the black box of collaborative learning transparent: Combining process-oriented and cognitive load approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 139–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A., & Frazier, S. (2008). How day of posting affects level of critical discourse in asynchronous discussions and computer supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 875–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2011). Temporality matters: Advancing a method for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2007). Examining the effect of problem type in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 439–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning, 13–37. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_2.

  • King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Martens, R. L., & Strijbos, J. W. (2004). CSCL in higher education? A framework for designing multiple collaborative environments (pp. 3–30) Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009a). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009b). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 306–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., et al. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäkitalo, K., Salo, P., Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. 2001. Analysing the mechanisms of common ground in collaborative web-based interaction. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 445–453). Maastricht, The Netherlands: University of Maastricht.

  • Mayer, R. H. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Volume II (pp. 141–160). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 63–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R., Whorton, J., & Gunsalus, C. (2000). A comparison of short-term and long-term retention: Lecture combined with discussion versus cooperative learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(1), 53–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M. (2005). Explicit referencing in chat supports collaborative learning. In T. Kosschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning: The next 10 years (pp. 460–469). Mahwah: Lawrance Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, E., & Manzanares, R. M. A. (2005). Reading between the lines: Understanding the role of latent content in the analysis of online asynchronous discussions. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(6), 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, B. (2000). Reinventing class discussion online. Monitor on Psychology, 31(4), 54–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments. Computers in Education, 53(4), 1256–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers in Education, 42(3), 243–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, H. R., & Mühlpfordt, M. (2002). Supporting discourse in a synchronous learning environment: The learning protocol approach. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 581–582). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational researcher, 24(7), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poesio, M., & Muskens, R. (1997). The dynamics of discourse situations. In P. Dekker, M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium, (pp. 247–252). University of Amsterdam, ILLC, December.

  • Ponnusawmy, H., & Santally, M. I. (2008). Promoting (quality) participation in online forums: A study of the use of forums in two online modules at the University of Mauritius. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 5(4), 1550–6908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological methods, 16(2), 93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (1998). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothkopf, E. Z. (1970). The concept of mathemagenic activities. Review of Educational Research, 40(3), 325–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Lin, X. D. (2000). Computers, productive agency, and the effort after shared meaning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 12(2), 3–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster epistemic engagement and cognitive presence in online education. Computers in Education, 52(3), 543–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, P. R. J. (2000). Towards a constructivistic theory of self-directed learning. Self-learning, 1–12. http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/ivlos/2005-0622-190617/5701.pdf.

  • Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Jaspers, J., & Janssen, J. (2010). Guiding students' online complex learning-task behavior through representational scripting. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 927–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Janssen, J., & Phielix, C. (2010). Fostering complex learning-task performance through scripting student use of computer supported representational tools. Computers in Education, 55(4), 1707–1720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge building. Proc. Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2000) (pp. 70–77). Ann Arbor, MI.

  • Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers in Education, 46(1), 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. (2001). Collaborative representations: Supporting face-to-face and online knowledge-building discourse. Paper presented at the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA.

  • Suthers, D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., & Xu, J. (2002). Kukakuka: An online environment for artifact-centered discourse. Paper presented at the Eleventh World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2002). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

  • Suthers, D., Girardeau, L., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). Deictic roles of external representations in face-to-face and online collaboration. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 173–182). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers in Education, 50(4), 1103–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takeda, T., & Suthers, D. (2002). Online workspaces for annotation and discussion of documents. Poster presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education, 2002.

  • Timmers, C., & Veldkamp, B. (2011). Attention paid to feedback provided by a computer-based assessment for learning on information literacy. Computers in Education, 56(3), 923–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uren, V., Buckingham, S., Li, G., Domingue, J., & Motta, E. (2003). Scholarly publishing and argument in hyperspace. Presented at the 12th International World Wide Web Conference. Budapest, Hungary.

  • Van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2006a). The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 339–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W., & Simons, P. R. J. (2006b). Context enhancement for co-intentionality and co-reference in asynchronous CMC. AI & Society, 20(3), 301–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. P., Kirschner, P. A., & Loesbeth, K. (2003). Taking the load off a learners mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, A., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (1999). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated argumentation. International Society of the Learning Sciences, 31(4), 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitworth, B., Gallupe, B., & McQueen, R. (2000). A cognitive three-process model of computer-mediated group interaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9(5), 431–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. (2008). Annotations and the collaborative digital library: Effects of an aligned annotation interface on student argumentation and reading strategies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 141–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y., Newby, T., & Robert, B. (2008). Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: A quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Computers in Education, 50(4), 1572–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The preliminary presentation of this research project received AIS SIGED: IAIM (the Educational Special Interest Group of AIS) best paper award at the ICIS 2010 Conference in Saint Louis, Missouri.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social Learning Software Laboratory, School of Information Systems and Technology, Claremont Graduate University, 130 E 9th Street, Claremont, CA, 91711, USA

    Evren Eryilmaz & Terry Ryan

  2. Centrum voor Nascholing (CNA), Hogeschool van Amsterdam - Theo Thijssenhuis, Wibautstraat 2-4 1091 GM AMSTERDAM, P.O. Box 20091000, CA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Jakko van der Pol

  3. Faculty of Pharmacy, Yeditepe University, 26 Agustos Campus Kayisdagi Street 81120 Kadikoy, Istanbul, Turkey

    Philip Martin Clark

  4. School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences, Claremont Graduate University, 150 E. 10th St., Claremont, CA, 91711, USA

    Justin Mary

Authors
  1. Evren Eryilmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jakko van der Pol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Terry Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philip Martin Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Justin Mary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evren Eryilmaz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eryilmaz, E., van der Pol, J., Ryan, T. et al. Enhancing student knowledge acquisition from online learning conversations. Computer Supported Learning 8, 113–144 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9163-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9163-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation