Advertisement

Analyzing temporal patterns of knowledge construction in a role-based online discussion

  • Alyssa Friend Wise
  • Ming Ming Chiu
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper introduces an approach to analyzing temporal patterns of knowledge construction (KC) in online discussions, including consequences of role assignments. The paper illustrates the power of this approach for illuminating collaborative processes using data from a semester-long series of discussions in which 21 university students were assigned weekly roles. The KC contributions of all 252 posts in the discussion were coded using a five phase scheme (Gunawardena et al. 1997). Then, statistical discourse analysis was applied to identify segments of discussion characterized by particular aspects of KC, and “pivotal posts”—those posts which initiated new segments of discussion. Finally, the influences of assigned student roles on pivotal posts and KC were modeled. The results indicate that most online discussions had a single pivotal post separating the discussion into two distinct segments: the first dominated by a lower KC phase; the second dominated by a higher KC phase. This provides empirical evidence supporting the progressive nature of the KC process, but not the necessity of the full five-phase sequence. The pivotal posts that initiated later segments were often contributed mid-discussion by students playing one of two summarizing roles (Synthesizer and Wrapper). This suggests that assigning a summarizing role mid-discussion can aid group progress to more advanced phases of KC. Finally, in some discussion segments, the KC phase of a post was related to characteristics of the two preceding posts. Collectively, the results demonstrate the power of this temporal approach for investigating interdependencies in collaborative KC in online discussions.

Keywords

Quantitative analysis of CSCL Temporal analysis Multilevel modeling Content analysis Computer mediated communication Asynchronous discussion groups Scripting Role taking 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Supplementary material

11412_2011_9120_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (114 kb)
Supplementary 1 (PDF 114 kb)

References

  1. Benjamini, Y., Krieger, A. M., & Yekutieli, D. (2006). Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika, 93, 491–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Chiu, M. M. (2008a). Flowing toward correct contributions during groups’ mathematics problem solving: A statistical discourse analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 415–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chiu, M. M. (2008b). Creating new ideas during argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 383–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2003). Rudeness and status effects during group problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 506–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2005). A new method for analyzing sequential processes: Dynamic multi-level analysis. Small Group Research, 36, 600–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J., West, S. G., Aiken, L., & Cohen, P. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research: An appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dansereau, D. F. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 103–120). Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  10. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46, 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modeling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups by introducing roles: Do students act up to the assigned roles? Small Group Research, 39, 770–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2010). Roles as structuring tool in online discussion groups: The differential impact of different roles on social knowledge construction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 516–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 275–295). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. Sydney: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haake, J. M., & Pfister, H. R. (2007). Flexible scripting in net-based learning groups. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported cooperative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 155–175). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analyses of on-line discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.x.
  22. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Positive interdependence: Key to effective cooperation. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 174–199). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kauffeld, S., & Meyers, R. A. (2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 267–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kennedy, P. (2004). A guide to econometrics. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. King, A. (1997). ASK to THINK – TEL WHY®©: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer supported communication of knowledge: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 13–37). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lally, V. (2001). Analysing teaching and learning interactions in a networked collaborative learning environment: Issues and work in progress. In Euro CSCL 2001 (pp. 397–405). Maastricht McLuhan Institute.Google Scholar
  30. Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind Culture and Activity, 7(4), 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lund, K., Law, N., Rosé, C., Suthers, D., & Teplovs, C. (2009). Pinpointing pivotal moments in collaboration. Workshop held at the STELLARnet Alpine Rendez-Vous, Garmisch-Partenkirchen Germany.Google Scholar
  32. Marra, R. M., Moore, J. L., & Klimczak, A. K. (2004). Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74, 557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pena-Shaff, J. B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42, 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Persell, C. H. (2004). Using focused web-based discussion to enhance student engagement and deep understanding. Teaching Sociology, 32, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piaget, J. (1985). Equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of cognitive development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable- and event-centered approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reyes P., & Tchounikine, P. (2003). Supporting emergence of threaded learning conversations through augmenting interactional and sequential coherence. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, CSCL’2003, Bergen (Norway), 83–92.Google Scholar
  42. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51–70.Google Scholar
  43. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36(6), 704–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2/3), 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seo, K. K. (2007). Utilizing peer moderating in online discussions: Addressing the controversy between teacher moderation and nonmoderation. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sheskin, D. J. (1997). Parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. CRC Press.Google Scholar
  47. Stahl, G., & Rosé, C. P. (2011). Group cognition in online groups. In: E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives. Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  48. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 195–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tagg, A. C. (1994). Leadership from within: Student moderation of computer conferences. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. In Euro CSCL 2001 (pp. 625–632). Maastricht: McLuhan institute, University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  52. Wee, J. D., & Looi, C. K. (2007). Model for analysing collaborative knowledge construction in a quasi-synchronous chat environment. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Chat Analysis Workshop, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  53. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wise, A. F., Padmanabhan, P., & Saghafian, M. (2010a). Exploring learners’ enactment experiences of functionally-specific assigned roles in online discussions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  55. Wise, A. F., Saghafian, M., & Padmanabhan, P. (2010b). ASIMeC-F: A content analysis scheme for assessing the presence of conversational functions in asynchronous discussions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  56. Wise, A. F., Saghafian, M., & Padmanabhan, P. (2011). Towards more precise design guidance. Specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  57. Xin, M. C., Glass, G., Feenberg, A., Bures, E. M., & Abrami, P. (2011). From active reading to active dialogue. In F. Pozzi & D. Persico (Eds.), Techniques for fostering collaboration in online learning communities: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 300–318). Hershey: IGI Global Publishing.Google Scholar
  58. Yang, Y., Newby, T. J., & Bill, R. L. (2005). Using Socratic questioning to promote critical thinking skills through asynchronous discussion forums in distance learning environments. American Journal of Distance Education., 19(3), 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhu, P. (1998). Learning and mentoring: Electronic discussion in a distance learning course. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 233–259). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationSimon Fraser UniversitySurreyCanada
  2. 2.Graduate School of EducationSUNY-BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options