Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Graduate Students’ Antecedents to Meaningful and Constructive Discussions: Developing Potential Collaborative Online Interactions

  • Published:
Journal of Formative Design in Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study analyzes evidence of how online graduate students perceive antecedents to productive online discussion posts and exchanges. It seeks to document how graduate students perceive good and bad discussions (both face-to-face and online). Through descriptive qualitative analysis we consider how graduate students describe online productive social interactions. Graduate student data provide potential elements and “rules” for discussion posts and group work that promote higher-order cognitive skills. As one graduate student succinctly offered, “I enjoyed reading my classmates’ lists, especially because it was so informative to learn what characteristics my classmates find most important in regards to discussions. This information will help me in how I approach our group work and discussion throughout this class. I was happy for the opportunity to use everyone’s wonderful posts in order to expand, elaborate, and clarify my own thoughts.”

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Alcoff, L. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique, Winter, 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. A., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S. C. (2015). Introducing online dialogues in co-located classrooms: if, why, and how. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 205–218). Washington, DC: AERA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, R. M., Rubalcava, B. R., & St. Pierre, D. (2000). Collaborative online distance learning: issues for future practice and research. Distance Education, 21(2), 260–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biocca, F. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence, 12(5), 456–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, M. J. (2014). Instructional message design: past, present, and future relevance. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communities and technology (pp. 373–384). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of education objectives: Hand book I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Box, C., Skoog, G., & Dabbs, J. M. (2015). A case study of teacher personal practice assessment theories and complexities of implementing formative assessment. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 956–983. doi:10.3102/0002831215587745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullough, R. V. (2015). Methods for studying beliefs: teacher writing, scenarios, and metaphor analysis. In H. Fives & M. G. Gills (Eds.), International handbook of research on teacher’s beliefs (pp. 150–165). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, T., Plaisant, C., & Vuillemot, R. (2008). The story of one: Humanity scholarship with visualization and text analysis (Tech Report HCOL-2008-33). College Park: University of Maryland, Human-Computer Lab.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dann, S. (2008). Analysis of the 2008 federal budget speech: Policy, politicking and marketing messages? Refereed paper delivered at Australian Political Studies Association, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved December 18, 2009, from http://www.uq.edu.au/polsis/apsa2008/Refereed-papers/Dann.pdf

  • Davison, C. (2013). Innovation in assessment: Common misconceptions and problems. In K. Hyland & L. C. Wong (Eds.), Innovation and change in English language education (pp. 263–276). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewiyanti, S., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. J. (2007). Students’ experience with collaborative learning in asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 496–514.

  • Dooley, C. M., Dangel, J. R., & Farran, L. K. (2011). Current issues in teacher education: 2006-2009. Action in Teacher Education, 33, 298–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drouin, M. A. (2008). The relationship between students’ perceived sense of community and satisfaction, achievement, and retention in an online course. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3), 267–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earl, L. M. (2013). Assessment as learning: using classroom assessment to maximize student learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

  • Elbaz, F. (1991). Research on teachers’ knowledge: the evolution of a discourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel, D., Woolley, A. W., Jing, L. X., Chabris, C. F., & Malone, T. W. (2014). Reading the mind in the eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face. PloS One, 9(12), e115212. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontaine, G., & Chun, G. (2010). Presence in teleland. In K. E. Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbook of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 30–56). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, Y. Y. H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance, and e-Learning, 19(2), 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research and practice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, M. G., & Fives, H. (2015). Introduction. In H. Fives & M. G. Gills (Eds.), International handbook of research on teacher’s beliefs (pp. 1–10). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. (2015). Teacher dialogue that supports collaborative learning in the classroom. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 335–345). Washington, DC: AERA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Pub. Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P., Jones, C., & Thompson, K. (2014). Computer-supported collaborative learning: instructional approaches, group processes and educational design. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communities and technology (4th ed., pp. 439–452). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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, PA: Information Science Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hasler-Waters, L., & Napier, W. (2002). Building and supporting student team collaboration in the virtual classroom. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(3), 345–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathorn, L. G., & Ingram, A. L. (2002). Online collaboration: making it work. Educational Technology, 42(1), 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 27–40.

  • Hudson, B. (2010). Candlepower: the intimate flow of online collaborative learning. In K. E. Rudestan & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbook of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 267–300). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Cooperation and the use of technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 401–423). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josselson, R. (2007). The ethical attitude in narrative research. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 537–566). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kalaian, S. A., & Kasim, R. M. (2014). A meta-analytic review of studies of the effectiveness of small-group learning methods on statistics achievement. Journal of Statistics Education, 22(1). Retrieved from: http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v22n1/kalaian.pdf

  • Kleinsasser, R. C., & Hong, Y. -C. (2016). Online group work design: processes, complexities, and intricacies. TechTrends, 60, 569–576. doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0088-6

  • Kleinsasser, R. C., & Liu, M. H. (2013). Context perspectives in a Taiwan junior high school. Teaching and Teacher Education: an International Journal of Research and Studies, 34, 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D. (1993). Methods of educational and social science research: an integrated approach. New York: Longman.

  • Krathwohl, D. (2009). Methods of educational and social sciences research: the logic of methods (3rd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, R. (2015). Language assessment training in Hong Kong: implications for language assessment literacy. Language Testing, 32, 169–197. doi:10.1177/0265532214554321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowes, S. (2014). How much “group” is there in online group work? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (Now: Online Learning), 18(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mardis, M., Hoffman, E., & Rich, P. J. (2014). Trends and issues in qualitative research methods. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 173–193). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mathison, S. M. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(12), 13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online learning social interaction and the creation of a sense of community. Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 73–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNaught, C., & Lam, P. (2010). Using Wordle as a supplementary research tool. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 630–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., Bakia, M., & Murphy, R. (2014). Learning online: what research tells us about whether, when, and how. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metz, M. H. (2000). Sociology and qualitative methodologies in educational research. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 60–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miley, F., & Read, A. (2011). Using word clouds to develop proactive learners. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 91–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K., Cameron, B. A., & Williams, K. C. (2009). Student perceptions of social task development in online group project work. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(3), 285–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum, G. (1999). Asynchronous computer mediated communication versus face to face collaboration: results on student learning, quality and satisfaction. Group Discussion and Negotiation, 8(5), 427–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. (2014). Fostering relevant research on educational communications and technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 909–918). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree granting postsecondary institutions: 2006–07 (NCES 2009–044), National Center for education statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Washington, D. C: Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, T. M. (2005). Collaborative and cooperative approaches to online group work: the impact of task type. Distance Education, 26(1), 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, A., & Bate, A. (2008). Using word clouds in teaching and learning. Bath: University of Bath. Retrieved from: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/474/1/using%2520word%2520clouds%2520in%2520teaching%2520and%2520learning.pdf

  • Ren, Y. (2014). Foreword. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. vii–vxi). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Clarke, S. N. (Eds.). (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, M. A. (2002). Cognitive dialogue, interaction patterns, and perceptions of graduate students in an online conferencing environment under collaborative and cooperative structures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Indiana, Bloomington.

  • Rovai, A. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 3(3), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudestam, K. E., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (2010). The flourishing of adult online education. In K. E. Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbook of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 1–28). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saritas, T. (2008). The construction of knowledge through social interaction via computer-mediated communication. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(1), 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds: the new technologies of collaboration. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analyzing talk, text, and interaction (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, M. J., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2016). Educational technology program and project evaluation. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (Eds.). (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, S., & Feiz, P. (2013). Discourse analysis: a multi-perspective and multi-lingual approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, S., & Feiz, P. (2014). Discourse analysis: putting our worlds into words. New York: Routledge.

  • Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: the sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, H., Wang, C. -H., Ku, H. -Y., & Sun, L. (2009). Key factors in online collaboration and their relationship to teamwork satisfaction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 195–296.

  • Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: a comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 101–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viegas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Feinburg, J. (2009). Participatory visualization with Wordle. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 15(6), 1137–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegmann, S. J., & McCauley, J. K. (2014). Investigating asynchronous online communication: a connected stance revealed. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(1), 97–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, A., Malone, T. W., & Chabris, C. F. (2015). Why some teams are smarter than others. New York: The New York Times Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/opinion/sunday/why-some-teams-are-smarter-than-others.html?_r=0

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, PO Box 871811, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1811, USA

    Robert C. Kleinsasser

  2. Arizona State University, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, PO Box 37100, MC3151, Phoenix, AZ, 85069-7100, USA

    Yi-Chun Hong

Authors
  1. Robert C. Kleinsasser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi-Chun Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi-Chun Hong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the IRB of Arizona State University (IRB Protocol #: 1302008761) and has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kleinsasser, R.C., Hong, YC. Graduate Students’ Antecedents to Meaningful and Constructive Discussions: Developing Potential Collaborative Online Interactions. J Form Des Learn 1, 84–98 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-017-0009-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-017-0009-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation