Advertisement

Online class size, note reading, note writing and collaborative discourse

  • Mingzhu Qiu
  • Jim Hewitt
  • Clare Brett
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Researchers have long recognized class size as affecting students’ performance in face-to-face contexts. However, few studies have examined the effects of class size on exact reading and writing loads in online graduate-level courses. This mixed-methods study examined relationships among class size, note reading, note writing, and collaborative discourse by analyzing tracking logs from 25 graduate-level online courses (25 instructors and 341 students) and interviews with 10 instructors and 12 graduate students. The quantitative and qualitative data analyses were designed to complement each other. The findings from this study point to class size as a major factor affecting note reading and writing loads in online graduate-level courses. Class size was found positively correlated with total number of notes students and instructors read and wrote, but negatively correlated with the percentage of notes students read, their note size and note grade level score. In larger classes, participants were more likely to experience information overload and students were more selective in reading notes. The data also suggest that the overload effects of large classes can be minimized by dividing students into small groups for discussion purposes. Interviewees felt that the use of small groups in large classes benefited their collaborative discussions. Findings suggested 13 to 15 as an optimal class size. The paper concludes with a list of pedagogical recommendations and suggestions for new multimedia software features to enhance collaborative learning in online classes.

Keywords

Class size Note reading Note writing Collaborative discourse Mixed methods study 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environment. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bender, T. (2003). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Bi, X. (2000). Instructional design attributes of web-based courses. Athens: Ohio State University (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 448746).Google Scholar
  4. Boettcher, J. V. (1999). What does knowledge look like and how can we help it grow? Syllabus Magazine, 13(2), 64–65.Google Scholar
  5. Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the experimental literature. The Journal of Business communication, 34, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (2nd ed.). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clouder, L., Dalley, J., Hargreaves, J., Parkes, S., Sellars, J., & Toms, J. (2006). Electronic reconstruction of group dynamics from face-to-face to an online setting. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 3–35.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Colwell, J. L., & Jenks, C. F. (2004). The upper limit: The issues for faculty in setting class size in online courses. Retrieved September 17, 2008 from http://www.ipfw.edu/tohe/Papers/Nov%2010/015__the%20upper%20limit.pdf
  13. Creswell, J. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River: Merrill.Google Scholar
  14. Davie, L. (1988). Facilitating adult learning through computer-mediated distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 55–69.Google Scholar
  15. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Dohn, N. B. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 343–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frey, B. A., & Wojnar, L. C. (2004). Successful synchronous and asynchronous discussions: Plan, implement, and evaluate. Retrieved September 17, 2008 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/MAC0426.pdf
  18. Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glass, G., & Smith, M. (1979). Meta-analysis of research on class size and achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1, 2–16.Google Scholar
  20. Graham, C. R., & Misanchuk, M. (2004). Computer-mediated learning groups: Benefits and challenges to using groupwork in online learning environments. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 181–202). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.Google Scholar
  22. Hakkaranen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2007). The relationship between class size and online activity patterns in asynchronous computer conferencing environments. Computers & Education, 49, 1258–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hewitt, J., Brett, C., & Peters, V. (2007). Scan rate: A new metric for the analysis of reading behaviors in asynchronous computer conferencing environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hron, A., & Friedrich, H. F. (2003). A review of web-based collaborative learning: Factors beyond technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hubscher-Younger, T., & Narayanan, N. H. (2003). Authority and convergence in collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 41, 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hutchinson, D. (2008). Teaching practices for effective cooperative learning in an online learning environment (OLE). Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(3), 357–366.Google Scholar
  28. Ingram, A. L., & Hathorn, L. G. (2004). Methods for analyzing collaboration in online communications. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 215–241). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindstrom, B. (2006). A relational, indirect, meso-level approach to CSCL design in the next decade. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keegan, D. (2002). The future of learning: from eLearning to mLearning. ZIFF Papier, 119, Fern-University Hagen.Google Scholar
  32. Kerka, S. (1996). Distance learning, the Internet, and the World Wide Web. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED395214)Google Scholar
  33. Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2008). Group awareness and self-presentation in computer-supported information exchange. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laurillard, D. (2008). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lipponen, L., & Lallimo, J. (2004). Assessing applications for collaboration: From collaboratively usable applications to collaborative technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 433–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Masters, A., & Oberprieler, G. (2004). Encouraging equitable online participation through curriculum articulation. Computers & Education, 42, 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Monahan, T., McArdle, G., & Bertolotto, M. (2008). Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1339–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  39. Morgan, D. L., Krueger, R. A., & King, J. A. (1998). Focus group kit. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori (Ed.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research: Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design (pp. 189–208). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Neo, M. (2003). Developing a collaborative learning environment using a web-based design. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 462–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pena, C. M. (2004). The design and development of an online, case-based course in a teacher preparation program. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(2), 1–18. Retrieved on September 20, 2008 from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/3.2.4.pdf.Google Scholar
  43. Qiu, M. (2009). A mixed methods study of class size and group configuration in online graduate course discussions. Open library published doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  44. Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Hershey: Information Science Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Roberts, M. R., & Hopewell, T. M. (2003). Web-based instruction in technology education. Council on Technology Teacher Education, 52nd Yearbook: Selecting instructional strategies for technology education. McGraw Hill, Glencoe.Google Scholar
  46. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). Retrieved at March. 2, 2010 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/79/152
  48. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of education, (2nd ed., pp.1370–1373). New York: Macmillan Reference.Google Scholar
  50. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Schoech, D. (2000). Teaching over the internet: Results of one doctoral course. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(4), 467–486.Google Scholar
  52. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  53. Sutton, L. A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223–242.Google Scholar
  54. Tao, P. K., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. Basingstoke: Falmer.Google Scholar
  57. Tomei, L. A. (2006). The impact of online teaching on faculty load: Computing the ideal class size for online courses. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 531–541.Google Scholar
  58. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Weigel, V. B. (2002). Deep learning for a digital age: Technology’s untapped potential to enrich higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  60. Wuensch, K. L., Aziz, S., Ozan, E., Kishore, M., & Tabrizi, M. H. N. (2008). Pedagogical characteristics of online and face-to-face classes. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 523–532.Google Scholar
  61. Xu, H., & Morris, L. V. (2007). Collaborative course development for online courses. Innovative Higher Education, 32(1), 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning, Ontario Institute for Studies in EducationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options