Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Benjamini, Y., Krieger, A. M., & Yekutieli, D. (2006). Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika, 93, 491–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. M. (2008b). Creating new ideas during argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 383–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2003). Rudeness and status effects during group problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 506–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2005). A new method for analyzing sequential processes: Dynamic multi-level analysis. Small Group Research, 36, 600–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., West, S. G., Aiken, L., & Cohen, P. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. Sydney: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.x.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, P. (2004). A guide to econometrics. Cambridge: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind Culture and Activity, 7(4), 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74, 557–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pena-Shaff, J. B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42, 243–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persell, C. H. (2004). Using focused web-based discussion to enhance student engagement and deep understanding. Teaching Sociology, 32, 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1985). Equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of cognitive development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheskin, D. J. (1997). Parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. CRC Press.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tagg, A. C. (1994). Leadership from within: Student moderation of computer conferences. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 40–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, 250–1345 102nd Avenue, Surrey, BC, Canada, V3T 0A3

    Alyssa Friend Wise

  2. Graduate School of Education, SUNY-Buffalo, 564 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY, USA, 14260

    Ming Ming Chiu

Authors
  1. Alyssa Friend Wise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ming Ming Chiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alyssa Friend Wise.

Additional information

This work emerged from a workshop which was partially financed by the European STELLAR Network of Excellence (FP7).

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary 1

(PDF 114 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wise, A.F., Chiu, M.M. Analyzing temporal patterns of knowledge construction in a role-based online discussion. Computer Supported Learning 6, 445–470 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9120-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9120-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation