Abstract
The discussion forum is a significant component of online courses. Instructors and students rely on these asynchronous forums to engage one another in ways that potentially promote critical thinking, meaningful problem sovving, and knowledge construction. In spite of the importance of these forums, predominantly used methods for assessing the content and outcomes of these forums has often been limited to frequency counts and other quantitative measures. Only recently have researchers developed protocols for conducting meaningful qualitative analysis of online discussion forums. This study compares the application of two content analysis protocols for online discussion boards by applying both to the content of a one-week student-led discussion. Our analysis provides a detailed description of how to use both protocols and evaluates each for its strengths and weaknesses toward the overall goal of providing educators and researchers with valid tools for assessing discussion forum content.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beaudrie, B. P. (2000).Analysis of group problem-solving tasks in a geometry course for teachers using computer-mediated conferencing. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman.
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.),Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation (pp. 17–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Burnett, G. (2000). Information exchange in virtual communities: A typology.Information Research,5(4) Retrieved May 10, 2003, from http://informationr .net/ir/5-4/paper82.html
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.
Condon, S. L., & Cech, C. G. (1996). Discourse management strategies in face-to-face and computer mediated decision making interaction.Electronic Journal of communication/LA Revue Electronique de Communication,6(3).
Cumming, S. and Ono, T. (1997). Discourse and grammar. In T. Van Dijk (Ed).Discourse as structure and process, pp. 257–291. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Ind.
de Laat, M. (2001). Network and content analysis in an online community discourse. Paper presented at the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference. Boulder CO: 2001. Retrieved May 10, 2003, from http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/62.pdf.
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New Implications for Instructional Technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.),Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation (pp.1–16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ertmer, P. A., & Quinn, J. (1999).The ID Casebook: Case Studies in Instructional Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fosnot, C. (1992). Constructing Constructivism. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.),Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation (pp. 167–176). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Garrison, D. R. (1992). Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult education: an analysis of responsibility and control issues.Adult Education Quarterly, 42(3), 136–148.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education.The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education.American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of global online debate andthe development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.
Harasim, L. M. (1989). Online education as a new domain. In R. Mason & A. R. Kaye (Eds.),Mindweave: communication, computers and distance education (pp. 50–62). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.),Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing (pp. 117–136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Hutchby, I. (2001).Confersation and technology: From the telephone to the internet. Malden, MA: Polity Press/Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving.Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 1042–1629.
Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord and knowledge construction.Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–74.
Kiesler, S., Siefel, J. and McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication.American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.
Krippendorf, K. (1990). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Vol. 5: The Sage COM-MTEXT Series, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications
Mason, R. (1992). Evaluation methodologies for computer conferencing applications. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.),Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing (pp. 105–116). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Mazur, J. (2004). Conversation analysis for educational technologists: theoretical and methodological issues for researching the structures, processes and meaning of on-line talk. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook for Research in Educational Communications and Technology, 2nd Edition, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McCreary, E. K. (1990). Three behavioral models for computer-mediated communication. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.),Online education: perspectives on a new environment (pp.117–130):New York:Praeger.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1999).Distance Education at Postsecondary Education Institutions (Statistical Analysis Report NCES 2000-013): Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1996).A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Retrieved July 15, 2003, from http://www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/papers/methods/contpap.html.
Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported co-operative learning.Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 484–495.
Olaniran, B. A., Savage, G. T., & Sorenson, R. L. (1996). Experiment and experiential approaches to teaching face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion.Communication Education, 45, 244–259.
Pullinger, D. J. (1986). Chit-chat to electronic journals, Computer conferencing supports scientific communication. In V. Arms (Ed.) IEEE Transactions of Professional Communications, PC29, 30–33.
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2003). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: the impact on cognitive processing. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, II.
Spitzer, M. (1989). Computer conferencing: An emerging technology. In G. Hawisher & S. Selfe (Eds.),Critical perspectives on computers and composition instruction. (pp. 187–199). New York: Teachers College Press.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis.Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,7(17).
van Dijk, T. (1997). Discourse as structure and process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Ind.
Warkentin, M. E., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of a Web-based conference system.Decision Sciences, 28, 975–996.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marra, R.M., Moore, J.L. & Klimczak, A.K. Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. ETR&D 52, 23–40 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504837
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504837