Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards more precise design guidance: specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While assigning student roles is a popular technique in online discussions, roles and the responsibilities allocated to them have not been consistently assigned. This makes it difficult to compare implementations and generate principled guidance for role design. This study critically examined frequently assigned student roles and identified a set of seven common functions they ask learners to perform (motivate others to contribute, give direction to the conversation, provide new ideas, use theory to ground the discussion, bring in (relevant external) sources, respond to previous comments, and summarize existing contributions). The latter six functions were used to generate a targeted set of role descriptions (Traffic Director, Starter, Inventor, Importer, Mini-me, Elaborator, Questioner, Devil’s Advocate, Synthesizer, Wrapper) and refine a content analysis scheme to assess function fulfillment in online discussions. The roles were tested in a semester-long mixed-level blended educational technology course of 21 students; student feedback was solicited via survey. Roles designed to elicit the functions give direction, use theory, bring in source, respond, and summarize showed a greater degree of function fulfillment than roles which were not. Students found the Starter role very valuable for giving direction to the discussion, and saw moderate value in the Synthesizer and Wrapper role’s summaries. The Devil’s Advocate role did not fulfill its respond function but was valued by students, suggesting a new possible critique function. All roles were found to use theory, possibly due to task structure. Implications for future research and practice in the design of online discussions are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaudin, B. (1999). Keeping online asynchronous discussion on topic. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2), 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 623–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unraveling basic components and dimensions (pp. 55–68). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bradley, M. E., Thom, L. R., Hayes, J., & Hay, C. (2008). Ask and you will receive: How question type influences quantity and quality of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 888–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. M. (2008). Flowing toward correct contributions during group problem solving: A statistical discourse analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 415–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research—an appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2004). It’s not so easy: Researching the complexity of emergent participant roles and awareness in asynchronous networked learning discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 165–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008a). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups by introducing roles: Do students act up to the assigned roles? Small Group Research, 39, 770–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modelling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 436–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2009). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: The impact of role assignment and self-assessment on students’ levels of knowledge construction through social negotiation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wever, B., Van Winckel, M., & Valcke, M. (2008b). Discussing patient management online: The impact of roles on knowledge construction for students interning at the paediatric ward. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13, 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, L., & Loughin, T. M. (in review). Analyzing binomial data in a split-plot design: Classical approach or modern techniques?

  • Fischer, F., Mandl, H., Haake, J., & Kollar, I. (Eds.). (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, P., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 2(4), 436–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analyses of on-line discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, A. P. (1994). Types of roles in small groups: A bit of history and a current perspective. Small Group Research, 25(3), 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2002). Web-based cases in teaching and learning: The quality of discussions and a stage of perspective taking in asynchronous communication. Interactive Learning Environments, 10, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, E., & Coleman, E. (2004). Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2). http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/128.

  • Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3, 56–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 847–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persell, C. H. (2004). Using focused web-based discussion to enhance student engagement and deep understanding. Teaching Sociology, 32, 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Social communication in computer conferencing. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(3), 259–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2/3), 225–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36(6), 704–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo, K. K. (2007). Utilizing peer moderating in online discussions: Addressing the controversy between teacher moderation and nonmoderation. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 14–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 195–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tagg, A. C. (1994). Leadership from within: Student moderation of computer conferences. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 40–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. In Euro CSCL 2001 (pp. 625–632). Maastricht: McLuhan Institute, University of Maastricht.

  • Walker, S. A. (2004). Socratic strategies and devil’s advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 172–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9120-1.

  • Yang, Y., Newby, T., & Bill, R. (2005). Using Socratic questioning to promote critical thinking skills through asynchronous discussion forums in distance learning environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 163–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Simon Fraser University, 250-13450 102 Avenue, Surrey, BC, V3T 0A3, Canada

    Alyssa Friend Wise & Marzieh Saghafian

  2. Research In Motion, 295 Phillip Street, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3W8, Canada

    Poornima Padmanabhan

Authors
  1. Alyssa Friend Wise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marzieh Saghafian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Poornima Padmanabhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alyssa Friend Wise.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wise, A.F., Saghafian, M. & Padmanabhan, P. Towards more precise design guidance: specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions. Education Tech Research Dev 60, 55–82 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9212-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9212-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation