Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 321–347 | Cite as

Identifying patterns of collaborative knowledge exploration in online asynchronous discussions

  • Silvia Wen-Yu Lee
  • Chin-Chung Tsai
Article

Abstract

This study investigated 6 weeks of online asynchronous discussions in a graduate-level course involving eleven students. The research purposes of this study were to identify patterns of collaborative knowledge exploration (CKE) and to suggest new analytical dimensions for investigating online discussions. Based upon a unique theoretical framework integrating the concepts of transition community and discourse community, three major dimensions of online asynchronous learning were adopted in the analysis. The first dimension focuses on the various forms of social negotiation in the discourse. The second dimension regards references to various learning resources, while the third is related to the coherence of the resources utilized. Based upon these dimensions and the analysis of the participating students’ online asynchronous discussions, this study suggested ten different patterns of CKE representing the cognitive processes of Elaborating, Challenging, Correcting, and Debating. We argue that the proposed analytical framework allows us to interpret the sociocultural and cognitive aspects of students’ interactions for online problem-based learning. In addition, the results suggest that the more cognitively demanding the pattern is, the less frequently it occurs. Potential factors contributing to the observed findings are discussed in this study.

Keywords

Online asynchronous discussion Collaborative learning Learning resources Transition community 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Funding of this research work is, in part, supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan, by grant numbers 97-2511-S-011-003-MY3 and 98-2631-S-011-001.

References

  1. Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (1999). Educational applications of CMCS: Solving case studies through asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4(3). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue3/benbunan-fich.html.
  2. Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Chernobilsky, E., DaCosta, M., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Learning to talk the educational psychology talk through a problem-based course. Instructional Science, 32(4), 319–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33, 483–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, A., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Discourse about ideas: Monitoring and regulation in face-to-face and computer-mediated environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1–2), 93–113.Google Scholar
  7. De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2003). Complexity, theory, and praxis: Researching collaborative learning and tutoring processes in a networked learning community. Instructional Science, 31, 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evensen, D. H., & Hmelo, C. E. (2000). Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guan, Y.-H., Tsai, C.-C., & Hwang, F.-K. (2006). Content analysis of online discussion on a senior-high-school discussion forum of virtual physics laboratory. Instructional Science, 34(4), 279–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(2), 75–91.Google Scholar
  12. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hmelo, C. E., & Lin, X. (2000). Becoming self-directed learners: Strategy development in problem-based learning. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. NJ, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction (26), 48–94.Google Scholar
  15. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chernobilsky, E., & Jordan, R. (2008). Understanding collaborative learning processes in new learning environments. Instructional Science, 36(5), 409–430.Google Scholar
  16. Huon, G., Spehar, B., Adam, P., & Rifkin, W. (2007). Resource use and academic performance among first year psychology students. Higher Education, 53, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacobsen, H. E. (2006). A comparison of on-campus first year undergraduate nursing students' experiences with face-to-face and on-line discussions. Nurse Education Today, 26, 494–500.Google Scholar
  18. Jeong, A. C. (2006). The effects of conversational language on group interaction and group performance in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Instructional Science, 34(5), 367–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeong, A. C., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48(3), 427–445.Google Scholar
  20. Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Killingsworth, M. J. (1992). Discourse communities—local and global. Rhetoric Review, 11(1), 110–122.Google Scholar
  22. Killingsworth, M. J. (1996). Discourse community. In T. Enos (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of rhetoric and composition (pp. 194–196). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  23. Koschmann, T., & Evensen, D. H. (2000). Five readings of a single text: Transcript of a video analysis session. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 137–166). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Koschmann, T., Glenn, P., & Conlee, M. (2000). When is a problem-based tutorial not a tutorial? Analyzing the tutor’s role in the emergence of a learning issue. In D. H. Evensen & C. H. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Laferriere, T., & Campos, M. (2006). Online collaboration for learning and knowledge building in undergraduate higher education. Paper presented at the Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Chesapeake, VA.Google Scholar
  26. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lichtenstein, M. (2005). The importance of classroom environments in the assessment of learning community outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 46(4), 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu, C.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50, 627–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luppicini, R. J. (2002). Toward a conversation system modelling research methodology for studying computer-mediated learning communities. Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 87–101.Google Scholar
  31. Luppicini, R. (2007). Review of computer mediated communication research for education. Instructional Science, 35(2), 141–185.Google Scholar
  32. Luppicini, R. (2008). Handbook of conversation design for instructional applications. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
  33. Moschkovich, J. N., & Brenner, M. E. (2000). Integrating a naturalistic paradigm into research on mathematics and science cognition and learning, In Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Naidu, S., & Jarvela, S. (2006). Analyzing CMC content for what? Computers & Education, 46(1), 96–103.Google Scholar
  35. O’Neill, P., Duplock, A., & Willis, S. (2006). Using clinical experience in discussion with problem-based learning groups. Advances in Health Education, 11, 349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pask, G. (1975). Conversation cognition and learning: A cybernetic theory and methodology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  37. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing collaborative interactions: divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 47(3), 332–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ragoonaden, K., & Bordeleau, P. (2000). Collaborative learning via the Internet. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 361–372.Google Scholar
  40. Sanchez-Sweatman, O. H. (2001). Using problem-based learning in distance education. In E. Rideout (Ed.), Transforming nursing education through problem-based learning (pp. 311–324). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.Google Scholar
  42. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Distributed Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Schrire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science, 32(6), 475–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
  45. Schrum, L., Burbank, M. D., Engle, J., Chambers, J. A., & Glassett, K. F. (2005). Post-secondary educators’ professional development: Investigation of an online approach to enhancing teaching and learning. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Te Winkel, W., Rikers, R., Loyens, S., & Schmidt, H. (2006). Influence of leaning resources on study time and achievement scores in a problem-based curriculum. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tiene, D. (2000). Online discussion: A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 371–384.Google Scholar
  49. Tisdell, E. J., Strohschen, G. I. E., Carver, M. L., Corrigan, P., Nash, J., Nelson, M., et al. (2004). Cohort learning online in graduate higher education: Constructing knowledge in cyber community. Educational Technology & Society, 7(1), 115–127.Google Scholar
  50. Tompkins, C. (2001). Nursing education for the twenty-first century. In E. Rideout (Ed.), Transforming nursing education through problem-based learning (pp. 21–50). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wells, G. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Witmer, D. F. (1998). Staying connected: A case study of distance learning student interns. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 4(2). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue2/witmer.html
  56. Zhang, J. W., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of 9- and 10-year-olds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 117–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhu, E. P. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34(6), 451–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Changhua University of EducationChanghua, 500Taiwan
  2. 2.Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and EducationNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipei, 106Taiwan

Personalised recommendations