Explicit Referencing in Learning Chats: Needs and Acceptance

  • Torsten Holmer
  • Andrea Kienle
  • Martin Wessner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4227)


Chat is used in many learning scenarios and platforms for synchronous communication support. Up to now evaluation of chat communication requires time consuming manual coding and analysis of the chat transcript. In this paper we present a method that combines manual and automatic steps: (1) chat transcripts are manually referenced, i.e. for each chat contribution it is determined to which previous contribution it refers to. (2) the referenced chat transcripts are structurally analysed by calculating different measures. The results of this structure analysis help to evaluate the learning chat and indicate where further (manual) analyses might be helpful. In addition, the ability of chat to support a certain type of learning scenario can be evaluated. We then discuss how chat can be improved by providing functionality for explicit referencing to the participants during the chat. The evaluation of a university seminar in the winter term 2004/2005 that used the tool KOLUMBUS Chat shows that references are used to different extents and not continuously. We analyse the reasons for (not) using explicit references. The results provide hints about the technical and organisational design for learning chats using references.


Communicative Behaviour Explicit Reference Learning Scenario Individual Constancy Parallel Thread 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Churchill, E.F., Trevor, J., Bly, S., Nelson, L., Cubranic, D.: Anchored Conversations: Chatting in the Context of a Document. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 454–461 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garcia, A., Jacobs, J.: The Interactional Organization of Computer-mediated Communication in the College Classroom. Qualitative Sociology 21(3), 299–317 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gerosa, M., Pimentel, M., Fuks, H., Lucena, C.: Analyzing discourse structure to coordinate educational forums. In: Lester, J.C., Vicari, R.M., Paraguaçu, F. (eds.) ITS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3220, pp. 262–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2004), (Last access 2006/04/10) available online at: http://ritv.les.inf.puc-rio.br/publicacoes/ITS2004.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Henri, F.: Computer conferencing and content analysis. In: Kaye, A.R. (ed.) Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers, pp. 115–136. Springer, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herring, S.: Dynamic topic analysis of synchronous chat. In: New Research for New Media: Innovative Research Methodologies Symposium Working Papers and Readings. U. of Minnesota School of Journalism & Mass Communication, Minneapolis, MN (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holmer, T.: Diskursstrukturanalyse der Chatkommunikation. Dissertation, TU Darmstadt (in preparation, 2006) (Discourse structure analysis, PhD thesis)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kienle, A.: The integration of asynchronous and synchronous communication support in cooperative systems. In: The 7th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP) (accepted, 2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leponiemi, J.: Visualizing Discussion History. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 15(1), 121–134 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., Scanlon, E.: Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20(3), 194–204 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mühlpfordt, M., Wessner, M.: Explicit Referencing In Chat Supports Collaborative Learning. In: Proceedings of the CSCL 2005, Taipei, Taiwan (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Münzer, S., Linder, U., Hoffmann, A., Balzer, E.: Gemeinsam online Lernen: Das Prozessmodell für Konzeption, Durchführung und Qualitätssicherung (Joint online learning: the process model for conception, realisation and quality ensurance). In: Münzer, S., Linder, U. (eds.) Gemeinsam Online Lernen: Vom Design bis zur Evaluation kooperativer Online-Übungen, pp. 92–223. Bertelsmann, Bielefeld (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schegloff, E.: Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society 29, 1–63 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith, M., Cadiz, J.J., Burkhalter, B.: Conversation Trees and Threaded Chats. In: Proceedings of the Conference on CSCW, pp. 97–105. ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suthers, D., Xu, J.: Kükäkükä: An Online Environment for Artifact-Centered Discourse. In: Proc. of the Conference WWW 2002, pp. 472–480 (Last access 2006/04/10), available online: http://www2002.org/CDROM/alternate/252/index.html
  15. 15.
    Rafaeli, S., Sudweeks, F.: Networked Interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Com. 2(4) (1997) (Last access 2006/04/10), available online: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html
  16. 16.
    Vronay, D., Smith, M., Drucker, S.: Alternative Interfaces for Chat. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 19–26. ACM, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wasserman, S., Faust, K.: Social Network Analysis. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torsten Holmer
    • 1
  • Andrea Kienle
    • 1
  • Martin Wessner
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Integrated Publication and Information Systems Institute (IPSI)DarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations