Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Posts that are made with no reference to previous posts constitute new root nodes.

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Caswell, B., & Bielaczyc, K. (2002). Knowledge Forum: Altering the relationship between students and scientific knowledge. Education, Communication & Information, 1, 281–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chan, C. K., & Chan, Y. Y. (2011). Students’ views of collaboration and online participation in Knowledge Forum. Computers & Education, 57, 1445–1457.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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).

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 567–589.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kear, K. (2001). Following the thread in computer conferences. Computers & Education, 37, 81–99.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Peters, V. L., & Hewitt, J. (2010). An investigation of student practices in asynchronous computer conferencing courses. Computers & Education, 54, 951–961.

    Article  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 21(2), 79–90.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

  49. 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 

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farshid Marbouti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marbouti, F., Wise, A.F. Starburst: a new graphical interface to support purposeful attention to others’ posts in online discussions. Education Tech Research Dev 64, 87–113 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9400-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Online learning
  • Computer mediated communication
  • Asynchronous discussions
  • Information visualization
  • Interface design