Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 64, Issue 1, pp 87–113 | Cite as

Starburst: a new graphical interface to support purposeful attention to others’ posts in online discussions

Development Article

Abstract

Online discussions offer exciting potential for educational dialogue, but too often result in disjointed conversations with low levels of interactivity. One contributing cause is the traditional text-based interface, which presents posts in a long list, leaving students overwhelmed and without useful navigational cues. To address this problem, we used information visualization techniques to design a graphical discussion forum interface. Starburst presents discussion posts as a dynamic hyperbolic tree: higher-level posts initially appear as larger and more central nodes, with each level of replies appearing smaller and more towards the periphery. To evaluate the new interface, students’ discussion participation using Starburst was compared to their activity interacting with the same discussion content in a traditional text-based linear forum. Results showed that students were more purposeful in selecting which discussion threads to read when using Starburst and read new posts in a more connected fashion. Implications for the future design, use, and research of online discussions are considered.

Keywords

Online learning Computer mediated communication Asynchronous discussions Information visualization Interface design 

References

  1. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.Google Scholar
  3. Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., & Geva, A. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 1–23.Google Scholar
  4. 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, 2–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). London, UK: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  6. Carr-Chellman, A., & Duchastel, P. (2000). The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caswell, B., & Bielaczyc, K. (2002). Knowledge Forum: Altering the relationship between students and scientific knowledge. Education, Communication & Information, 1, 281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan, C. K., & Chan, Y. Y. (2011). Students’ views of collaboration and online participation in Knowledge Forum. Computers & Education, 57, 1445–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan, J. C. C., Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2009). Asynchronous online discussion thread development: Examining growth patterns and peer-facilitation techniques. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 25, 438–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cui, Y., & Wise, A. F. (2015). Identifying content-related threads in MOOC discussion forums. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 299–303). Vancouver, BC: ACM.Google Scholar
  11. Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21–34.Google Scholar
  12. Dringus, L. P., & Ellis, T. (2005). Using data mining as a strategy for assessing asynchronous discussion forums. Computers & Education, 45, 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engdahl, B., Köksal, M., & Marsden, G. (2005). Using treemaps to visualize threaded discussion forums on PDAs. In CHI’05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 1355–1358).Google Scholar
  14. Forde, C. (2008). A virtual margin for knowledge work on the web: Design, implementation and usability testing, Unpublished masters thesis, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  15. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guiller, J., Durndell, A., & Ross, A. (2008). Peer interaction and critical thinking: Face-to-face or online discussion? Learning and Instruction, 18, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.x.Google Scholar
  19. Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28, 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 567–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hillman, D., Willis, D., & Gunawardena, C. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hsiao, Y. T., Wise, A. F., & Marbouti, F. (2012). The impact of task type on learners’ online interaction patterns. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, B., & Shneiderman, B. (1991). Tree-maps: A space-filling approach to the visualization of hierarchical information structures. Proceedings of IEEE Information Visualization, 284–291.Google Scholar
  24. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kear, K. (2001). Following the thread in computer conferences. Computers & Education, 37, 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim, B., & Johnson, Ph. (2006). Graphical interface for visual exploration of online discussion forums. The Journal on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 4(4), 43–47.Google Scholar
  27. Lamping, J., & Rao R. (1994). Laying out and visualization large trees using a hyperbolic space. Proceedings of the 7th ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 13–14.Google Scholar
  28. Lamping, J., & Rao, R. (1996). The hyperbolic browser: A focus + context technique based on hyperbolic geometry for visualizing large hierarchies. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 7, 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lucas, M., Gunawardena, C., & Moreira, A. (2014). Assessing social construction of knowledge online: A critique of the interaction analysis model. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 574–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marbouti, F. (2012). Design, implementation and testing of a visual discussion forum to address new post bias, Unpublished master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  31. Nielsen, J. (1994). Guerrilla HCI: Using discount usability engineering to penetrate the intimidation barrier. In R. G. Bias & D. J. Mayhew (Eds.), Cost-justifying usability (pp. 245–272). Boston, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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, 847–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peters, V. L., & Hewitt, J. (2010). An investigation of student practices in asynchronous computer conferencing courses. Computers & Education, 54, 951–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of the Asynchronous Learning Network, 6(1), 21–40.Google Scholar
  35. Pickett, R. M., Grinstein, G. G., Levkowitz, H., & Smith, S. (1995). Harnessing pre-attentive perceptual processes in visualization. In G. Grinstein & H. Levkowitz (Eds.), Perceptual issues in visualization (pp. 33–45). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Plaisant, C., Grosjean, J., & Bederson, B. B. (2002). Space tree: Supporting exploration in large node link tree, design evolution and empirical evaluation. Proceedings of IEEE Information Visualization, 57–64.Google Scholar
  37. Quinlan, P., & Humphreys, G. (1987). Visual search for targets defined by combinations of color, shape and size: An examination of task constraints on feature and conjunction searches. Perception and Psychophysics, 41, 455–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robertson, G. G., Mackinlay, J. D., & Card, S. K. (1993). Information visualization using 3D interactive animation. Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183–192). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  40. Smith, M. A., & Fiore, A. T. (2001). Visualization components for persistent conversations. Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2001 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference, 136–143.Google Scholar
  41. Spence, R. (2007). Information visualization: Design for interaction. Madrid: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing. In P. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education (pp. 53–85). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 21(2), 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Suthers, D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computer & Education, 50, 1103–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, practice and direction (pp. 13–45). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.Google Scholar
  46. Teplovs, C. (2008). The Knowledge Space Visualizer: A tool for visualizing online discourse. Paper presented at the Common Framework for CSCL Interaction Analysis Workshop at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2008. Utrecht, NL.Google Scholar
  47. Teplovs, C., Donoahue, Z., Scardamalia, M., & Philip, D. (2007). Tools for concurrent, embedded, and transformative assessment of knowledge building processes and progress. Demonstration presented at Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference 2007. New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  48. Teplovs, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2007). Visualizations for knowledge building assessment. Paper presented at the AgileViz workshop, Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference 2007. New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Wanstreet, C. E. (2009). Interaction in online learning environments. In A. Orellana, T. L. Hudgins, & M. R. Simonson (Eds.), The perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teaching (pp. 425–442). USA: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  51. Ware, C. (2004). Information visualization: Perception for design. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  52. Wegerif, R., McLaren, B. M., Chamrada, M., Scheuer, O., Mansour, N., Mikšátko, J., & Williams, M. (2010). Exploring creative thinking in graphically mediated synchronous dialogues. Computers & Education, 54, 613–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wise, A. F., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & Del Valle, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wise, A. F., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). Analyzing temporal patterns of knowledge construction in a role-based online discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 445–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wise, A. F., Hausknecht, S. N., & Zhao, Y. (2014a). Attending to others’ posts in asynchronous discussions: Learners’ online “listening” and its relationship to speaking. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(2), 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wise, A. F., Hsiao, Y. T., Speer, J., Marbouti, F., & Perera, N. (2012a). Initial validation of “listening” behavior typologies for online discussions using microanalytic case studies. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. Jacobson & P. Reimann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2012 (pp. 56–63). Sydney, Australia: ISLS.Google Scholar
  57. Wise, A. F., Marbouti, F., Hsiao, Y., & Hausknecht, S. (2012b). A survey of factors contributing to learners’ “listening” behaviors in asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(4), 461–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wise, A. F., & Padmanabhan, P. (2009). Seeing the forest and the trees: Visualizing the structural and temporal dimensions of asynchronous threaded online learning conversations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association. San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  59. Wise, A. F., Perera, N., Hsiao, Y., Speer, J., & Marbouti, F. (2012c). Microanalytic case studies of individual participation patterns in an asynchronous online discussion in an undergraduate blended course. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 108–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wise. A. F., Speer, J., Marbouti, F., & Hsiao, Y. T. (2013). Broadening the notion of participation in online discussions: Examining patterns in learners’ online listening behaviors. Instructional Science, 41(2), 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wise, A. F., Zhao, Y., & Hausknecht, S. N. (2014b). Learning analytics for online discussions: Embedded and extracted approaches. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(2), 48–71.Google Scholar
  62. Yang, D., Sinha, T., Adamson, D. & Rose, C. P. (2013). Turn on, tune in, drop out: Anticipating student dropouts in massive open online courses. In Workshop on Data Driven Education, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Engineering EducationPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationSimon Fraser UniversitySurreyCanada

Personalised recommendations