Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 123–137 | Cite as

Knowledge articulation dialog increases online university science course outcomes

  • Kenneth D. Strang


University graduate level science courses (over four different semesters) were investigated to measure how knowledge articulation dialog (in discussion forums) improved essay and case study scores. The knowledge articulation teaching methodology was integrated from the educational psychology and knowledge management literature while Socratic questioning was drawn from the education community of practice. A quasi-experiment (with strong degree of control) was configured, with teaching method (knowledge articulation versus questioning) being the treatment factor. Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, ANOVA, MANOVA and MANCOVA techniques were utilized to test the hypothesis.


Online science course Discussion forum Dialog Knowledge articulation ANOVA MANOVA MANCOVA 


  1. Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). Is there an optimal design for on-line mba courses? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 135–149.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Conversational learning. Westport: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  3. Barrie, S. C., & Ginns, P. (2007). The linking of institutional performance indicators to improvements in teaching in classrooms. Quality in Higher Education, 13(3), 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brookfield, S. D. (1993). Self-directed learning, political clarity, and the critical practice of adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 43(4), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byers, C. (2005). Multi-level alignment model: transforming face-to-face into e-instructional programs. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(5/6), 346–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Costin, H., & Hamilton, D. (2009). Quality in business education as measured by accreditation and ranking systems. International Journal of Management in Education, 3(3/4), 249–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004). Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two blended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning; Oxford, 20(3), 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crow, J., & Smith, L. (2005). Co-teaching in higher education: Reflective conversation on shared experience as continued professional development for lecturers and health and social care students. Reflective Practice, 6(4), 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darling-Hammond, L., Barron, B., Pearson, P. D., Schoenfeld, A. H., Stage, E. K., Zimmerman, T. D., et al. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  11. Glenn, L., Jones, C., & Hoyt, J. (2003). The effect of interaction levels on student performance: a comparative analysis of web mediated versus traditional delivery. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(3), 285–299.Google Scholar
  12. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Hiemstra, R., & Brockett, R. G. (1994). Overcoming resistance to self-direction in adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 64, 32–47.Google Scholar
  14. Hintikka, J. (2008). Socratic epistemology: Explorations of knowledge-seeking by questioning. New York: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  15. Jenlink, P., & Carr, A. A. (1996). Conversation as a medium for change in education. Educational Technology, 4, 31–38.Google Scholar
  16. Kienle, A. (2009). Intertwining synchronous and asynchronous communication to support collaborative learning—system design and evaluation. Education and Information Technologies, 14(1), 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kingston, E., & Forland, H. (2008). Bridging the gap in expectations between international students and academic staff. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12, 204–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klemm, W. R. (2002). Analytical model for teaching students to analyze research reports in an asynchronous computer conference environment. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(5), 298–302.Google Scholar
  19. Laurillard, D. (2007). Modelling benefits-oriented costs for technology enhanced learning. Higher Education, 54(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lemak, D. J., Shin, S. J., Reed, R., & Montgomery, J. C. (2005). Technology, transactional distance, and instructor effectiveness: an empirical investigation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 150–159.Google Scholar
  21. Mooij, T. (2009). Education and ict-based self-regulation in learning: theory, design and implementation. Education and Information Technologies, 14(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2001). Seci, ba, and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. In I. Nonaka & D. Teece (Eds.), Managing industrial knowledge creation, transfer and utilization. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Pask, G. (1975). Conversation, cognition, and learning. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Pask, G., Kallikourdis, D., & Scott, B. C. E. (1975). The representation of knowables. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 17, 15–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Psaromiligkos, Y., & Retalis, S. (2003). Re-evaluating the effectiveness of a web-based learning system: a comparative case study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
  26. Richardson, R. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic quality in a short web-based course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 433–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sherry, L., Billig, S. H., & Tavalin, F. (2000). Good online conversation: building on research to inform practice. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 85–127.Google Scholar
  28. Stewart, B. L., Norwood, M., Ezell, S., & Waight, C. (2006). Case study: collaborative creation of an on-line degree program. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(3), 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Strang, K. D. (2004). Applying learning goal theory and relational database design to web-based education creation and delivery. Proceedings of the North America Web Conference, Fredericton NB. Retrieved June 23, 2009 from
  30. Strang, K. D. (2009a). How multicultural learning approach impacts grade for international university students in a business course. Asian English Foreign Language Journal Quarterly, 11(4), 271–292.Google Scholar
  31. Strang, K. D. (2009b). Measuring online learning approach and mentoring preferences of international doctorate students. International Journal of Education Research, 48(3), 121–142.Google Scholar
  32. Strang, K. D. (2010a). Articulating tacit knowledge in multinational e-collaboration on new product designs. In P. Francq (Ed.), Collaborative search and communities of interest: Trends in knowledge sharing and assessment. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  33. Strang, K. D. (2010b). Effectively teach professionals online: Explaining and testing educational psychology theories (2nd ed.). Germany: VDM.Google Scholar
  34. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., & Shaw, S. M. (2006). Teaching courses online: a review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tan, B. T. (2003). Does talking with peers help learning? The role of expertise and talk in convergent group discussion tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tsai, P.-J., Hwang, G.-J., Tseng, J. C. R., & Hwang, G. H. (2008). Computer-assisted approach to conducting cooperative learning process. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 6(1), 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context: Confucian and socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57(2), 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wise, A. F., Padmanabhana, P., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Connecting online learners with diverse local practices: the design of effective common reference points for conversation. Distance Education Journal, 30(3), 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zimmer, R. S. (2001). Variations on a string bag: using pask’s principles for practical course design. Kybernetes, 30(7/8), 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.APPC International Market ResearchLong IslandUSA
  2. 2.University of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations