Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rethinking online discourse: Improving learning through discussions in the online classroom

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As colleges continue to expand online offerings, student participation within courses should be assessed to ensure that teachers can best implement effective, responsible lesson plans. This study examined discourse in an online classroom in order to gauge student participation by observing student-to-student and student-to-instructor exchanges within the discussion board. Classroom discourse was analyzed using Stahl’s computer supported collaborative learning methodology. Data was collected to assess development of classroom dialogue through group collaboration, and to determine whether participants were interpreting previous posts and contributing to the development of the discussion topic. This study shows that students within the online classroom were able to construct deeper meanings in classroom dialogues through thoughtful and personal contributions, thereby reaching new understandings through collaborative discussion. This study contends that through insightful planning and guided responses, instructors can manage online classroom discussions to better direct student communications in order to improve collaborative learning and knowledge construction.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barbosa, R., Jofili, Z., & Watts, D. M. (2004). Cooperating and constructing knowledge: case studies from chemistry and citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 935–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, L. B. (2012). Digital divides and literacy learning: A metaphor analysis of developmental college students’ and teachers’ conceptualizations of technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.

  • Boostrom, R. E., Jr., Kurthakoti, R., & Summey, J. H. (1999). Enhancing class communications through networks. Marketing Education Review, 19(1), 37–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, M. L. (2009). Using WebCT as a supplemental tool to enhance critical thinking and engagement among developmental reading students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(2), 9–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Candela, A. (1999). Students’ power in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 10(2), 139–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capper, J. (2001). E-learning growth and promise for the developing world. Techknowlogia 6–10.

  • Chaika, G. (1999). Virtual high schools: The high schools of the future? Education World. Retrieved October 25, 2010 from http://education-world.com/a_curr/curr119.shtml.

  • Coiro, J. (2003). Exploring literacy on the internet. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coole, H., & Watts, M. (2009). Communal e-learning styles in the online classroom. Research in Education, 82, 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Leon, L., Pena, C., & Whitacre, M. (2010). Fostering student discourse through an online student teacher support group: a phenomenological study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 37(4), 355–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennen, V. P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmer, D. (2007). Something different from the same-oh, same-oh: A survey of community college students’ competence in and use of technology in public speaking classes. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 8(1). Retrieved August 3, 2009 from http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/past_ed.htm.

  • Engstrom, E. U. (2005). Reading, writing, and assistive technology: an integrated developmental curriculum for college students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(1), 30–39.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ferdig, R. E., & Roehler, L. R. (2004). Student uptake in electronic discussions: examining online discourse in literacy preservice classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, A., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2009). Seeking feedback in blended learning: competitive versus cooperative student attitudes and their links to learning outcome. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 280–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2000). The eight steps of ensuring diversity is a resource. The Newsletter of the Cooperative Learning Institute, 15(1), n.p.

  • Jones, B. J. (2003). Learning with, through, and about computers: students’ best friend or worst nightmare? Teaching English in the Two Year College, 30(3), 286–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Agamba, J. (2014). Promoting effective e-learning practices through the constructivist pedagogy. Education and Information Technologies, 19(4), 887–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2013). Toward a framework for CSCL research. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuehner, A. V. (1999). The effects of computer instruction on college students’ reading skills. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 29(2), 149–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapadat, J. (2003). Teachers in an online seminar talking about talk: classroom discourse and school change. Language and Education, 17(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. (2007). Online collaborative case study learning. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(2), 82–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, L. L., Ebenezer, J., & Yost, D. S. (2009). Characteristics of pre-service teachers’ online discourse: the study of local streams. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 69–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liaw, S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: a case study of the blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864–873.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, M. (1997). Social constructivism and the World Wide Web: A paradigm for learning. Retrieved October 3, 2010, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth97/papers/Mcmahon/Mcmahon.html.

  • Moore, R. (2007). Academic motivation and performance of developmental education biology students. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(1), 24–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nofsinger, R. E. (1999). Everyday conversations. Prospect Heights: Waveland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online discourse. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 105–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schallert, D. L., Chiang, Y. V., Park, Y., Jordan, M. E., Lee, H., Cheng, A. J., Chu, H. R., Lee, S., Kim, T., & Song, K. (2009). Being polite while fulfilling different discourse functions in online classroom discussions. Computers & Education, 53, 713–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singara, M. D., Battle, J., & Nicholson, S. A. (1998). E-mail ‘Booktalking’: Engaging developmental readers with authors and others in the academic community. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 29(1), 30(1). Retrieved July 6, 2009, from Expanded Academic ASAP via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=EAIM&userGroupName=ucinc_main.

  • Smith, B. Q. (2004). Genre, medium, and learning to write: negotiating identities, enacting school-based literacies in adulthood. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 34(2), 75–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upton, D. (2006). Online learning in speech and language therapy: student performance and attitudes. Education for Health, 19, 22–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vacca, R. T. (2006). They can because they think they can. Educational Leadership, 63(5), 56–59.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. W., Watkinds, K., Daley, B., Courtenay, B., Davis, M., & Dymock, D. (2001). Facilitating cross-cultural online discussion groups: implications for practice. Distance Education, 22(1), 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xin, C., & Feenberg, A. (2006). Pedagogy in cyberspace: the dynamics of online discourse. Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yim, Y. K. (2011). Second language students’ discourse socialization in academic online communities. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(1), 1–27.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., & Duke, N. K. (2008). Strategies for internet reading with different reading purposes: a descriptive study of twelve good internet readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 128–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services, University of Cincinnati, PO Box 210022, Cincinnati, OH, 45221-0022, USA

    Cass M. Johnson

Authors
  1. Cass M. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cass M. Johnson.

Appendices

Appendix A

1.1 Post-course instructor interview

How would you categorize yourself regarding the use of digital technologies? Inexperienced, experienced, something in between? How so?

Regarding the course [deleted], how did you like the online format? Do you feel the students learned as much in this class as they might in other typical face-to-face classes?

Regarding the course [deleted], do you think students were more motivated to participate in class discussions or less motivated than other typical face-to-face classes? Why do you think this is so?

Regarding the course [deleted], what did you think of the student-student interactions in the class? How would this compare to typical face-to-face classes?

Regarding the course [deleted], what did you think of the student-instructor interactions in the class? How would this compare to typical face-to-face classes?

If you could change something in the online format to help students learn more, what would you change?

Appendix B

2.1 Class discussion board instructions

2.1.1 Discussion board

There will be several points where you will be asked to participate in discussion board posts and replies to your classmates. These are less formal written assignments than papers and are meant to represent some of our class discussions in a traditional face-to-face class. Typically the discussion board will operate as follows:

  1. 1.

    Students write an informal but thought provoking response to text we have read or a topic we are discussing. These can include ideas that were new to you this quarter, ideas that have clarified your understanding of something, ideas you strongly agree or disagree with, commentary about how these ideas are relevant to your daily lives, and connections you can see between multiple ideas or texts in the course overall.

  2. 2.

    Students will then respond to a minimum of two peers. They will read the posts and respond by building on classmates’ ideas, clarifying information for classmates, expanding on the classmates’ ideas, connecting with classmates’ personal experiences, and questioning (respectfully and intellectually) classmates’ about their ideas.

  3. 3.

    Students are responsible for maintaining their posts. This means that if someone comments on your posts, you are expected to acknowledge and respond to their comments. This is one of our dialogues when you will practice switching from reader to writer and back.

  4. 4.

    The instructor will observe the discussion board throughout the week. Usually the instructor will not comment until the end of the week in an effort to allow classroom discussion to evolve without bias or guidance from the teacher. Each individual will receive at least one response from the instructor for each discussion board assignment.

    It is the expectation that each student will treat each other and the instructor with professional respect of mutual learners. We learn not only from what we read by professional authors, but we the experiences and ideas of others. The discussion board should be a comfortable, relaxed environment where ideas can be exchanged.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnson, C.M. Rethinking online discourse: Improving learning through discussions in the online classroom. Educ Inf Technol 21, 1483–1507 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9395-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9395-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation