Theoretical models of collaborative learning through online discussions presuppose that students generally attend to others’ posts. However, a succession of studies over the last decade has shown this assumption to be unwarranted. Instead, research indicates that learners attend to others’ posts in diverse and particular ways—an activity we have conceptualized as online “listening.” In this study, we take an important step forward in developing a robust theory of online listening by examining the relationship between how learners “listen” (access existing posts) and “speak” (contribute posts) in online discussions. Ten variables indexing four dimensions of students’ listening (breadth, depth, temporal contiguity and revisitation) and five variables indexing three dimensions of students’ speaking (discursiveness, depth of content and reflectivity) were calculated for 31 students participating in 6 week-long online discussions as part of an undergraduate educational psychology course. Multi-level mixed-model linear regressions indicated that responsiveness of students’ posts was positively predicted by how often they revisited previously read peer posts, and negatively related to a greater number of posts in the discussion overall. The depth of posts’ contents was predicted by the percentage of posts viewed that students actually read (as opposed to scanned). An exploratory follow-up analysis indicated that these listening-speaking relationships manifest differently over time for distinct subsets of learners (e.g., a decrease in variable pairs versus corresponding fluctuations around stable levels). Put together, results suggest that when students take the time to read and re-read their peers’ posts there are related benefits in the quality of the posts they contribute.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Bodie, G., Worthington, D., Imhof, M., & Cooper, L. O. (2008). What would a unified field of listening look like? A proposal linking past perspectives and future endeavors. International Journal of Listening, 22(2), 103–122.
Boulos, M. N., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(1), 2–23.
Brooks C, Greer J & Gutwin, C. (in press). The data-assisted approach to building intelligent technology enhanced learning environments. To appear in J. Larusson & B. White (Eds.) The handbook of learning analytics: Methods, tools and approaches. New York: Springer.
Burleson, B. R. (2011). A constructivist approach to listening. International Journal of Listening, 25(1–2), 27–46.
Cheung, W. S., Hew, K. F., & Ling Ng, C. S. (2008). Toward an understanding of why students contribute in asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(1), 29–50.
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(1), 6–28.
Dennen, V. P. (2008). Pedagogical lurking: student engagement in non-posting discussion behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1624–1633.
Garrison, J. (1996). A Deweyan theory of democratic listening. Educational Theory, 46(4), 429–451.
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.
Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., & Järvelä, S. (2002). Epistemology of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 129–156). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(1/2), 41–61.
Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: a review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38(6), 571–606.
Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 31–45.
Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589.
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), 215–231.
Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 35–51.
Knowlton, D. S. (2005). A taxonomy of learning through asynchronous discussion. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(2), 155–177.
Lin, H., Hong, Z., & Lawrenz, F. (2012). Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 59(2), 378–384.
Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 72–81). Boulder: ISLS.
Marbouti, F. (2012). Design, implementation and testing of a visual discussion forum to address new post bias. Unpublished masters thesis. Burnaby, CA: Simon Fraser University.
Marbouti, F. & Wise, A. F. (in review). Starburst: A new graphical interface to support productive engagement with others’ posts in online discussions.
Muller, M., Shami, N. S., Millen, D. R., & Feinberg, J. (2010). We are all lurkers: consuming behaviors among authors and readers in an enterprise file-sharing service. In Proceedings of GROUP’10 ACM 2010 International Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 201–210). Sanibel, FL: ACM
Nagel, L., Blignaut, A. S., & Cronjé, J. C. (2009). Read-only participants: a case for student communication in online classes. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 37–51.
Nonnecke, B., Preece, J., Andrews, D., & Voutour, R. (2004). Online lurkers tell why. In Bullen, C., Stohr, E. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Tenth American Conference on Information Systems 2004 (pp. 1–7) New York: Association for Information Systems.
Palmer, S., Holt, D., & Bray, S. (2008). Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally assessed online discussion on final student results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 847–858.
Pena-Shaff, J. B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42(3), 243–265.
Peters, V., & Hewitt, J. (2010). An investigation of student practices in asynchronous computer conferencing courses. Computers & Education, 54(4), 951–961.
Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 201–223.
Rafaeli, S., Ravid, G., & Soroka, V. (2004). De-lurking in virtual communities: A social communication network approach to measuring the effects of social and cultural capital. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (p70203, 10pp). Big Island, Hawaii: IEEE.
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education , 10(1), 77–88.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–116). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer‐assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 79–90.
Strother, D. B. (1987). On listening. The Phi Delta Kappan, 68(8), 625–628.
Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2010). A framework for conceptualizing, representing, and analyzing distributed interaction. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 5–42.
Sutton, L. A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223–242.
Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: the space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351–366.
Webb, E., Jones, A., Barker, P., & van Schaik, P. (2004). Using e-learning dialogues in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 93–103.
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95.
Wise, A. F., Zhao; Y. & Hausknecht, S. N. (in press). Learning analytics for online discussions: Embedded and extracted approaches. Journal of Learning Analytics.
Wise, A. F., Hsiao, Y. T., Marbouti, F., Speer, J. & Perera, N. (2012a). Initial validation of “listening” behavior typologies for online discussions using microanalytic case studies. In J. van Aalst, J., K. Thompson, K., M. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2012 (pp. 56–63). Sydney, Australia: ISLS.
Wise, A. F., Hsiao, Y. T., Marbouti, F. & Zhao, Y. (2012b). Tracing ideas and participation in an asynchronous online discussion across individual and group levels over time. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. Jacobson & P. Reimann (Eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2012 (pp. 431–435). Sydney, Australia: ISLS.
Wise, A. F., Marbouti, F., Hsiao, Y., & Hausknecht, S. (2012c). A survey of factors contributing to learners’ “listening” behaviors in asynchronous discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(4), 461–480.
Wise, A. F., Perera, N., Hsiao, Y., Speer, J., & Marbouti, F. (2012d). Microanalytic case studies of individual participation patterns in an asynchronous online discussion in an undergraduate blended course. Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 108–117.
Wise, A. F., Saghafian, M., & Padmanabhan, P. (2012e). Towards more precise design guidance: specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 55–82.
Wise, A. F., Speer, J., Marbouti, F., & Hsiao, Y. (2013a). Broadening the notion of participation in online discussions: examining patterns in learners’ online listening behaviors. Instructional Science, 41(2), 323–343.
Wise, A. F., Zhao; Y. & Hausknecht, S. N. (2013a). Learning analytics for online discussions: A pedagogical model for intervention with embedded and extracted analytics. In D. Suthers & K. Verbert (Eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 48–56). Leuven, Belgium: ACM.
Wise, A. F., Zhao, Y., Hausknecht, S. & Chiu, M. M. (2013b). Temporal considerations in analyzing and designing for online discussions in education: Examining duration, sequence, pace and salience. In E. Barbera & P. Reimann (Eds.) Assessment and evaluation of time factors in online teaching and learning (pp. 198–231). Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Group Incorporated.
This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada.
About this article
Cite this article
Wise, A.F., Hausknecht, S.N. & Zhao, Y. Attending to others’ posts in asynchronous discussions: Learners’ online “listening” and its relationship to speaking. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 9, 185–209 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-014-9192-9
- Asynchronous discussion groups
- Online learning
- Student participation
- Computer mediated communication