Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 147–163 | Cite as

Look who’s talking: Emergent evidence for discriminating between differences in listserv participation

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This paper reports findings from a study of LookJed, the oldest and largest on-line forum for Computer Mediated Discussion among individuals interested in Jewish education. The study adopted a “cyber-ethnographic” approach, with postings to the forum seen as “acts of communication” that reveal what is important to their authors. An interest in exploring similarities between forum conversations and those in teachers’ lounges led to an investigation of Herring’s claim that most listservs do not include discussion at all, only the trading of information. This investigation found that active forum participants generally use the forum for discrete purposes, most commonly to exchange information about “subject matter” or “teaching material”, less commonly to exchange opinions and ideas, and rarely to do both. Integrating an analysis of patterns of contribution with an examination of their discursive content reveals six preeminent “types” among the population of contributors, each of whom participates in the forum in different ways and acts with different purposes. Although this typology is at best suggestive and needs to be tested against other listserv cases, its easy identification suggests that in order to better understand the cultures of virtual forums, it is important to pursue a more variegated characterization of listserv participants and their motivations than has typically been the case in CMD research where users are most frequently identified as either lurkers or fanatics, or as active or passive participants.

Keywords

Computer-mediated communication Improving classroom teaching Learning communities Listserv users 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This paper is based on research funded by the Lookstein Centre for Jewish Education.

References

  1. Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., & Geva, A. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 1–23. Retrieved December 14, 2006 from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v7n3/pdf/v7n3_aviv.pdf.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Peretz, M., & Schonmann, S. (2000). Behind closed doors: Teachers and the role of the teachers’ lounge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  3. Booth, S., & Hulten, M. (2003). Opening dimensions of variation: An empirical study of learning in a web-based discussion. Instructional Science, 31(1–2), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carey, J. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  5. Fahy, P. (2002). Use of linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers in a computer conference. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fahy, P., Crawford, G., & Ally, M. (2001). Patterns of interaction in a computer conference transcript. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved December 14, 2006 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/36/74.
  7. Fox, N., & Roberts, C. (1999). GPs in cyberspace: The sociology of a 'virtual community. The Sociological Review, 47, 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a text-based environment. Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet in Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. London: Abacus.Google Scholar
  10. Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global on-line debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining the social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.Google Scholar
  11. Hammond, M. (1999). Issues associated with participation in on-line forums—the case of the communicative learner. Education and Information Technologies, 4(4), 353–367.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conference and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.) Collaborative Learning through computer conferencing: the Najaden papers (pp. 117–136). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Herring, S. (2002). Communication and collaboration: Computer-mediated communication on the internet. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 109–168.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Higie, R., Feick, L., & Price, L. (1987). Types and amount of word-of-mouth communications about retailers. Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holmes, D. (2005). Communication theory: Media, technology and society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–75.Google Scholar
  17. MacIntyre, A. (1990). After virtue: A study in moral theory, 2nd edition. Guilford: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  18. Matusov, E., Hayes, R., & Pluta, M. J. (2005). Using discussion webs to develop an academic community of learners. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 16–39.Google Scholar
  19. Meyrowitz, J. (1999). Understandings of media. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 56(1), 44–53.Google Scholar
  20. Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 2(1). Retrieved December 14, 2006 from http://www.apa.org/divisions/div21/MemberActivities/chb2004/jp.pdf.
  21. Renninger, K. A., & Shumar, W. (2002). Community building with and for teachers at The Math Forum. In K. A. Renninger, & W. Shumar (Eds.) Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 60–95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Rheingold, H. (1994). Virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. New York: Harper Trade.Google Scholar
  23. Rogers, J. (2000). Communities of practice: A framework for fostering coherence in virtual learning communities. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 384–392.Google 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, 8–22.Google Scholar
  25. Schneider, S. M. (2000). Creating a democratic public sphere through political discussion. In G.D. Garson (Ed.) Social dimensions of information technology: Issues for the new millennium (pp. 121–139). London: Idea Group.Google Scholar
  26. Schutz, A., & Luckman, T. (1974). The structures of the life-world. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  27. Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239–265.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Walsh, G., Gwinner, K. P., & Swanson, S. R. (2004). What makes mavens tick? Exploring the motives of market mavens’ initiation of information diffusion. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(2), 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Whittaker, S., Terveen, L., Hill, W., & Cherny, L. (1998). The dynamics of mass interaction. Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 257–264). Seattle, WA: ACM.Google Scholar
  30. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 ways of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.)Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104–124). London: Cassell Educational.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melton Centre for Jewish EducationHebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations