Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 25–50 | Cite as

Computer-mediated-communications, learning style, and visualizing online educational conversations

  • William J. Gibbs
  • Ronan S. Bernas
Article
  • 153 Downloads

Abstract

THIS DESCRIPTIVE PILOT STUDY employed the Grascha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scale (GRSLSS) to examine student communication and interactions in an online educational discussion that occurred for fourteen days. Discussion activity exhibited conversational turns and messages appeared as conversation rather than expository. Individuals scoring high on the Independent scale of the GRSLSS tended to send and exchange more messages and were more likely to state and justify their agreement with other discussants. Those scoring high on the Avoidant scale were less likely to offer to take actions or to give suggestions about how to proceed during discussions. Student with high Collaborative scores were more likely to engage in scaffolding and to offer to take action on the issue being discussed.

Keywords

computer-mediated communications online learning learning style online discussions visualization of online discussions 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alavi, M. (1994, June). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation.MIS Quarterly. 159–174.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction.International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved on January 31, 2006, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149Google Scholar
  3. Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis.The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 53–72. Retrieved on January 27, 2006, from http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol4_issue2/le/reuven/LE-reuven.htmGoogle Scholar
  4. Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, R. (1999). Impact of asynchronous learning networks on individual and group problem solving: A field experiment,Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 409–426. Retrieved on January 27, 2006, from http://www.alnresearch.org/Data_Files/articles/full_text/benbunan.htmCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diaz, D.P. (2001).Comparison of student characteristics, and evaluation of student success, in an online health education course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL. Retrieved on August 10, 2005, from http://home.earthlink.net/~davidpdiaz/LTS/pdf_docs/dissertn.pdfGoogle Scholar
  6. Diaz, D.P., & Bontenbal, K.F. (2001). Learner preferences: Developing a learnercentered environment in the online or mediated classroom.Ed at a Distance, 15(8). Retrieved on August 10, 2005, from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/AUG01_Issue/article03.htmlGoogle Scholar
  7. Diaz, D.P., & Cartnal, R.B. (1999). Students' learning styles in two classes: Online distance learning and equivalent on-campus.College Teaching, 47(4), 130–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donath, J. (2002, April). A semantic approach to visualizing online conversations.Association for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 45–49.Google Scholar
  9. Donath, J., Karahalios, K., & Viegas, F. (1999). Visualizing conversation.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieved on February 5, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/donath.htmlGoogle Scholar
  10. Erickson, T.J., Halverso, C., Kellogg, W.A., Laff, M., & Wolf, T. (n.d.).Social translucence: Designing social infrastructures that make collective activity visible. IBM T. J. Watson Research Center. Retrieved on February 5, 2005, from http://www.visi.com/%7Esnowfall/Soc_Infrastructures.html.Google Scholar
  11. Fisher, D., & Dourish, P. (2004). Social and temporal structures in everyday collaboration.Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 551–558). Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  12. Gibson, C.C. (1998). The distance learner's academic self-concept. In C. Gibson (Ed.),Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes (pp. 65–76). Madison, WI: Atwood.Google Scholar
  13. Grasha, A.F. (1990). The naturalistic approach to learning styles.College Teaching, 3, 106–109.Google Scholar
  14. Grasha, A.F. (2002).Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance. Retrieved on July 10, 2005, from http://ilte.ius.edu/pdf/teaching_with_style.pdfGoogle Scholar
  15. Hara, N., Bonk, C.J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in applied educational psychology.Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Introduction: Computer-mediated collaborative practices.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,10(4). Retrieved on April 25, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/haythronthwaite.htmlGoogle Scholar
  17. Herring, S.C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieved on May 10, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/herring.htmlGoogle Scholar
  18. 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). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Jeong, A. (2005, April 1).Methods and tools for the computational analysis of group interaction and argumentation in asynchronous online group discussions. Paper presented at the Learning and Technology Symposium at New York University, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  20. Jonassen, D. (1998). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigleuth (Ed.),Instructional theories and models (2nd ed., pp. 1–21), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Orlich, D.C., Harder, R.J., Callahan, R.C., & Gibson, H.W. (2001).Teaching strategies: A guide to better instruction. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston.Google Scholar
  22. Patterson, J.G. (2002). Understanding and promoting effective online student learning styles: An action research study.Action Research Exchange, 1(1). Retrieved on February, 2006, from http://teach.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/patterson_am.pdfGoogle Scholar
  23. Quan-Haase, A., Cothrel, J., & Wellman, B. (2005). Instant messaging for collaboration: A case study of a high-tech firm.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). Retrieved on September 24, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/quan-haase.htmlGoogle Scholar
  24. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(1), 8–22.Google Scholar
  25. Russo, T.C., & Campbell, S.W. (2004, October). Perceptions of mediated presence in an asynchronous online course: Interplay of communication behaviors and medium.Distance Education, 25(2), 216–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Selvin, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Zimmermann, B., Palus, C., Drath, W., Horth, D., Domingue, J., Motta, E., & Li, G. (2001, March 4–7,). Compendium: Making meetings into knowledge events.Knowledge Technologies. Austin, TX. Retrieved on December 14, 2005, from http://www2.gca.org/knowledgetechnologies/2001/proceedings/Conklin&Selvin%20Slides.pdfGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith, M., & Fiore, A. (2001, March 31-April 5). Visualization components for persistent conversations.Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp 136–143). Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  28. Walther, J.B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective.Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yates, S.Y. (1996). 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 (pp. 29–46). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Journalism and Multimedia ArtsDuquesne UniversityPittsburgh
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyEastern Illinois UniversityCharleston

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options