Instructional Science

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 115–152 | Cite as

Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course

Abstract

This study analyzed discussion in an online conferencethat supplemented class discussion using aninstructional method called the starter-wrappertechnique within a traditional graduate leveleducational psychology course. Various quantitativemeasures were recorded to compare instructor andstudent participation rates. In addition, Henri's(1992) model for content analysis of computer-mediatedcommunication was employed to qualitatively analyzethe electronic discourse. Using this model, five keyvariables were examined: (1) student participationrates; (2) electronic interaction patterns; (3) socialcues within student messages; (4) cognitive andmetacognitive components of student messages; and (5)depth of processing -- surface or deep -- within messageposting. Transcript content analyses showed that,while students tended to post just the one requiredcomment per week in the conference, their messageswere lengthy, cognitively deep, embedded with peerreferences, and indicative of a student orientedenvironment. Moreover, students were using high levelcognitive skills such as inferencing and judgment aswell as metacognitive strategies related to reflectingon experience and self-awareness. Weekly conferenceactivity graphs revealed that student electroniccomments became more interactive over time, but werehighly dependent on the directions of discussionstarter. To better understand the impact ofelectronic conferencing discourse, modifications toHenri's model as well as qualitative researchsuggestions were offered.

computer conferencing online learning technology cognitive skills metacognition social interaction educational psychology content analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahern, T.C., Peck, K. & Laycock, M. (1992). The effects of teacher discourse in computermediated discussion. Journal of Educational Computing Research 8(3): 291–309.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, P.A., Schallert, D.L. & Hare, V.C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research 61(3): 315–343.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, S. & Greller, L.M. (1994). Computer-mediated communication in the organization. Communication Education 43(4): 129–142.Google Scholar
  4. Berliner, D.C. (1987). But do they understand? in V. Richardson-Koehler, ed., Educator' Handbook: A Research Perspective, pp. 259–293. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook of Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay.Google Scholar
  6. Bonk, C.J. (1998, April). Pedagogical activities on the “Smartweb”: electronically mentoring undergraduate educational psychology students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual convention, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  7. Bonk, C.J., Daytner, K., Daytner, G., Dennen, V. & Malikowski, S. (1999). Online Mentoring of Preservice Teachers with Web-based Cases, Conversations, and Collaborations. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual convention, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  8. Bonk, C.J., Hansen, E.J., Grabner, M.M., Lazar, S. & Mirabelli, C. (1998). Time to “Connect”: Synchronous and asynchronous case-based dialogue among preservice teachers. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King, eds, Electronic Collaborators: Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse, pp. 289–314. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Bonk, C.J. & King, K.S. eds (1998). Electronic Collaborators: Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Bonk, C.J., Malikowski, S., Angeli, C. & East, J. (1998). Web-based case conferencing for preservice teacher education: Electronic discourse from the field. Journal of Educational Computing Research 19(3): 267–304.Google Scholar
  11. Bonk, C.J., Malikowski, S., Supplee, L. & Angeli, C. (1998). Holy COW: Scaffolding case-based “Conferencing on the Web” with preservice teachers. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual convention, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  12. Bonk, C.J. & Sugar, W.A. (1998). Student role play in theWorld Forum: Analyses of an Arctic learning apprenticeship. Interactive Learning Environments 6(1- 2): 1–29.Google Scholar
  13. Duffy, T.M., Dueber, B. & Hawley, C.L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King, eds, Electronic Collaborators: Learner-centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse, pp. 51–78. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Entwistle, N. & Waterston, S. (1988). Approaches to studying and levels of processing in university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology 58: 258–265.Google Scholar
  15. Feenberg, A. (1987). Computer conferencing and the humanities. Instructional Sciences 16:169–186.Google Scholar
  16. Grabowski, B., Suciati & Pusch, W. (1990). Social and intellectual value of computermediated communications in a graduate community. Educational and Training Technology International 27(3): 276–283.Google Scholar
  17. Harasim, L.M. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication 16(2): 117–135.Google Scholar
  18. Harasim, L.M. (1993). Global Networks: Computers and International Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A.R. Kaye, ed., Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing: The Najaden Papers, pp. 115–136. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Hiltz, S.R. (1990). Evaluating the virtual classroom. In L.M. Harasim, ed., Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment, pp. 133–183. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  21. Howell-Richardson, C. & Mellar, H. (1996). A methodology for the analysis of patterns of participation within computer-mediated communication courses. Instructional Science 24:47–69.Google Scholar
  22. Iseke-Barnes, J.M. (1996). Issues of educational uses of the Internet: Power and criticism in communications and searching. Journal of Educational Computing Research 15(1): 1–23.Google Scholar
  23. Kang, I. (1998). The use of computer-mediated communication: Electronic collaboration and interactivity. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King, eds, Electronic Collaborators: Learner-centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse, pp. 315–337. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal 29(2): 303–323.Google Scholar
  25. Kuehn, S.A. (1994). Computer-mediated communication in instructional settings: A research agenda. Communication Education 43: 171–183.Google Scholar
  26. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lehrer, R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: Patterns of hypermedia design. In S.P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry, eds, Computers as Cognitive Tools, pp. 197–227. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Levin, J.A., Kim, H. & Riel, M.M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic message networks. In L.M. Harasim, ed., Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment, pp. 185–214. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
  29. Mason, R.I. (1990). Home Computing Evaluation: Use of CoSy on DT200, 1989. (CITE Report No. 99). England: The Open University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320 541.)Google Scholar
  30. Mowrer, D.E. (1996). A content analysis of student/instructor communication via computer conferencing. Higher Education 32: 217–241.Google Scholar
  31. Newman, F.W. (1992). The prospects for classroom thoughtfulness in high school social studies. In C. Collins & J.N. Mangieri, eds, Teaching Thinking: An Agenda for the 21st Century, pp. 105–132. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Palincsar, A.S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist 21(1- 2): 73–98.Google Scholar
  33. Palincsar, A.S. & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1(2): 117–175.Google Scholar
  34. Phillips, A.F. & Pease, P.S. (1987). Computer conferencing and education: Complementary or contradictory concepts? The American Journal of Distance Education 1(2): 44–52.Google Scholar
  35. Phillips, G.M., Santoro, G.M. & Kuehn, S.A. (1988). The use of computer mediated communication in training students in group problem-solving and decision making techniques. The American Journal of Distance Education 2(1): 38–51.Google Scholar
  36. Rice, R.E. (1989). Issues and concepts in research on computer-mediated communication systems. In J. Anderson, ed., Communication Yearbook, 12, pp. 436–476. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Rice, R. & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computermediated network. Communication Research 14: 85–108.Google Scholar
  38. Riel, M. (1990). Cooperative learning across classrooms in electronic learning circles. Instructional Science 19: 445–466.Google Scholar
  39. Riel, M. & Harasim, L. (1994). Research perspectives on network learning. Machine-Mediated Learning 4(2- 3): 91–113.Google Scholar
  40. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  41. Romiszowski, A. & Mason, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication. In D. Jonassen, ed., Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 438–456. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Salomon, G. (1993). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools. In S. Lajoie & S. Derry, eds, Computers as Cognitive Tools, pp. 179–196. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Schon, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  44. Schrage, M. (1990). Shared Minds: The Technologies of Collaboration. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  45. Schwandt, T.A. (1997). Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Shapard, J. (1990). Observations on cross-cultural electronic networking: Access to Japan. Whole Earth Review 69: 32–36.Google Scholar
  47. Smolensky, M.W., Carmody, M.A. & Halcomb, C.G. (1990). The influence of task type, group structure, and extroversion on uninhabited speech in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior 6: 261–272.Google Scholar
  48. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, eds, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research 23(1): 3–43.Google Scholar
  50. Walther, J.B. & Tidwell, L.C. (1995). Nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communication, and the effect of chronemics on relational communication. Journal of Organizational Computing 5(4): 355–378.Google Scholar
  51. Yagelski, R.P. & Grabill, J.T. (1998). Computer-mediated communication in the undergraduate writing classroom: A study of the relationship of online discourse and classroom discourse in two writing classes. Computers and Composition 15: 11–40.Google Scholar
  52. 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, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noriko Hara
    • 1
  • Curtis Jay Bonk
    • 2
  • Charoula Angeli
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Instructional Systems Technology, School of EducationIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, School of EducationIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  3. 3.Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations