Advertisement

Challenge or connect? dialogue in online learning environments

  • Trena M. Paulus
Article

Abstract

THERE IS INCREASING INTEREST in creating frameworks for online discussions to improve learning outcomes in higher education environments. Many of these frameworks rely on and promote argumentation-based “challenge” models as the primary mode of discourse. This study tested one existing framework, created by Gunawardena, Lowe, and Anderson (1997), with four small groups in an online higher education environment. Asynchronous discussion transcripts of the four groups as they completed goal-oriented tasks were analyzed for both what the groups talked about and how they created new knowledge together. Using computer-mediated discourse analysis techniques, the Gunawardena et al. (1997) categories were operationalized into functional moves to capture the knowledge construction process. Findings show that rather than a challenge model of argumentation discourse, participants engaged in a relationship-oriented discourse of connection. Educators should be aware of both models of discourse, challenge and connect, because emphasizing only argumentation before trust has been developed among members of the group could result in unproductive conflict.

Keywords

computer-mediated communication discourse analysis collaborative learning environments distance learning 

References

  1. Austin, J.L. (1962.)How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barros, B., & Verdejo, M.F. (2000). Analyzing student interaction processes in order to improve collaboration. The DEGREE approach.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 221–241.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, M. (2000). Classical content analysis: a review. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.),Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 131–151). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986).Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Bonk, C.J., & King, K.S. (1998).Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Burbules, N.C. (1993).Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Campos, M. (2004). A constructivist method for the analysis of networked cognitive communication and the assessment of collaborative learning and knowledge building.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 1–29.Google Scholar
  8. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.),Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Duffy, T.M., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C.L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. Center for Research on Learning and Technology,Technical Report No. 5-98. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  10. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education.American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.Google Scholar
  11. Gunawardena, C.N., Lowe, C.A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online 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), 397–431.Google Scholar
  12. Hathorn, L.G., & Ingram, A.L. (2002). Online collaboration: Making it work.Educational Technology, 42(1), 33–40.Google Scholar
  13. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A.R. Kaye (Ed.),Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 115–136). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  14. Henri, F., & Rigault, C. (1996). Collaborative distance education and computer conferencing. In T.T. Liao (Ed.),Advanced educational technology: Research issues and future potential (pp. 45–76). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Herring, S.C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J.H. Gray (Eds.),Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376)., New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Herring, S.C. (2000). Gender differences in CMC: Findings and implications.Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Newsletter. Retrieved October 27, 2000, from the http://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/index.html.Google Scholar
  17. Herring, S.C. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S.C. Herring (Ed.)Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 81–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  18. Herring, S.C. (1994). Politeness in computer culture: Why women thank and men flame. In M. Bucholtz, A. Liang, & L. Sutton (Eds.), Cultural performances.Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference, (pp. 278–94). Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
  19. Howell-Richardson, C., & Mellar, H. (1996). A methodology for the analysis of patterns of participation within computer mediated communication courses.Instructional Science, 24, 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Islas, J.R.L. (2004). Collaborative learning at Monterrey Tech-Virtual University. In T.M. Duffy & J.R. Kirkley (Eds.),Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education (pp. 297–320). Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B.B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education.The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kanuka, H., & Anderson T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord and knowledge construction.Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
  23. Newman, D.R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported co-operative learning.Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 484–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ravenscroft, A. & Pilkington, R.M. (2000). Investigation by design: Developing dialogue models to support reasoning and conceptual change.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 273–298.Google Scholar
  25. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis.Educational Technology Research, & Development, 52(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8–22.Google Scholar
  27. Searle, J.R. (1969).Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Tan, S.C., Turgeon, A.J., & Jonassen, D.H. (2001). Develop critical thinking in group problem solving through computer-supported collaborative argumentation: A case study.Journal of Natural Resources and Life Science Education, 30, 97–103.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Trena M. Paulus
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville

Personalised recommendations