Deirdre Grogan

Show more
School of Education, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Show less

Abstract: This paper investigates features of synchronous chat-communication within a postgraduate e-learning programme that is rooted communities of enquiry (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This project, funded by the Scottish Government, was to provide staff development for teachers throughout Scotland. The paper considers approaches to making sense of disparate threads of online chats between tutors and students and methodological issues in identifying the appropriate unit of analysis. The framework for analysis was derived from promotion of a community of enquiry perspective (Garrison, 2007; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008) which emphasises the importance of the intersection of social, cognitive and teaching presence for achieving shared learning goals. A quantitative content analysis of transcripts from tutor led group chats was used to determine frequencies of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence indicators. Results show that overall, 70% of the contributions were coded as facilitating cognitive discourse. This finding builds on previous research by Ortiz-Rodriguez et al. (2005) which suggests that instructors can influence cognitive presence within synchronous chat. It is suggested that the community of learning enquiry has the potential to help identify critical points for encouraging cognitive presence within synchronous chats. In addition, the study has implications for the growing number of guidelines for the design of online learning environments, particularly in terms of the extent to which synchronous chats have potentially underestimated the value of synchronous learning environments in supporting deeper, critical thinking and shared reflection among learners.

Keywords: E-Learning, Synchronous Discussion Groups, Learning Communities Reflection

Cite this paper: Grogan, D. (2015) Disentangling the Threads: Analysing Synchronous Online Discussions. Creative Education, 6, 338-349. doi: 10.4236/ce.2015.63032.

References

[1]   Arabasz, P., Boggs, R., & Baker, M. B. (2003). Highlights of E-Learning Support Practices. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin, 2003, 11p.

[2]   Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2007). Combining Individual and Group-Level Perspectives for Studying Collaborative Knowledge Construction in Context. Learning and Instruction, 17, 448-459.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.04.003

[3]   Bento, R., & Schuster, C. (2003). Participation: The Online Challenge. In A. Aggarwal (Ed.), Web-Based Education: Learning from Experience (pp. 156-164). Hershey, PA/London, UK: Idea Group Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-102-5.ch010

[4]   Bober, M. J., & Dennen, V. P. (2001). Intersubjectivity: Facilitating Knowledge Construction in Online Environments. Educational Media International, 38, 241-250.

[5]   Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The University of Learning: Beyond Quality and Competence in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.

[6]   Brown, J. S. (2000). The Social Life of Information. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

[7]   Cockburn, A., & Greenberg, S. (1993). Making Contact: Getting the Group Communicating with Groupware. In Proceedings of the Conference on Organizational Computing Systems (COOCS ’93) (pp. 31-41). Milpitas, CA: ACM Press.

[8]   Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004). Evaluating the Use of Synchronous Communication in Two Blended Courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 183-193.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00084.x

[9]   Davidson-Shivers, G., Muilenburg, L., & Tanner, E. (2001). How Do Students Participate in Synchronous and Asynchronous Online Discussions? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25, 351-366.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/6DCH-BEN3-V7CF-QK47

[10]   Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and Computer Conferencing in Distance Education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 7-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071

[11]   Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online Community of Inquiry Review: Social, Cognitive and Teaching Presence Issues. Calgary: University of Calgary.
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~nvaughan/coiissues.pdf

[12]   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, 87-105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

[13]   Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[14]   Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social Presence Theory and Implications for Interaction and Collaborative Learning in Computer Conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1, 147-166.

[15]   Hines, R. A., & Pearl, C. E. (2004). Increasing Interaction in Web-Based Instruction: Using Synchronous Chats and Asynchronous Discussions. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23, 33-36.

[16]   Hough, B., Smithey, M., & Evertson, C. (2004). Using Computer-Mediated Communication to Create Virtual Communities of Practice for Intern Teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12, 361-386.

[17]   Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous & Synchronous E-Learning. Educause Quarterly, 51-55.

[18]   Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and Learning: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

[19]   Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

[20]   Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the Pitfalls for Social Interaction in Computer-Supported Collaboration Learning Environments: A Review of Research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335-353.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2

[21]   Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

[22]   López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended Learning in Higher Education: Students’ Perceptions and Their Relation to Outcomes. Computers & Education, 56, 818-826.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023

[23]   Masters, K., & Oberprieler, G. (2004). Encouraging Equitable Online Participation through Curriculum Articulation. Computers and Education, 42, 319-332.

[24]   Northrup, P. (2001). A Framework for Designing Interactivity into Web-Based Instruction. Educational Technology, 41, 31-39.

[25]   Ortiz-Rodriguez, M., Telg, R., Irani, T., Roberts, T., & Rhoades, E. (2005). College Students’ Perceptions of Quality in Distance Education: The Importance of Communications. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6, 97-105.

[26]   Pachler, N., & Daly, C. (2011). Key Issues in e-Learning: Research and Practice. London: Continuum.

[27]   Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[28]   Paulus, T., & Phipps, G. (2008). Approaches to Case Analyses in Synchronous and Asynchronous Environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 459-484.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00405.x

[29]   Penman, M., & Lai, K. W. (2003). Synchronous Communication and Higher-Order Thinking in a Tertiary Course in Occupational Therapy. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14, 387-404.

[30]   Repman, J., Zinskie, C., & Carlson, R. D. (2005). Effective Use of CMC Tools in Interactive Online Learning. Computers in the Schools, 22, 57-69.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J025v22n01_06

[31]   Schwier, R. A., & Balbar, S. (2002). The Interplay of Content and Community in Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication: Virtual Communication in a Graduate Seminar. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28, 21-30.

[32]   Stricker, D., Weibel, D., & Wissmath, B. (2011). Efficient Learning Using a Virtual Learning Environment in a University Class. Computers & Education, 56, 495-504.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.012

[33]   Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for Interaction: Six Steps to Designing Computer-Supported Group-Based Learning. Computers & Education, 42, 403-424.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.10.004

[34]   Strijbos, J.-W., & Stahl, G. (2007). Methodological Issues in Developing a Multi-Dimensional Coding Procedure for Small-Group Chat Communication. Learning and Instruction, 17, 394-404.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.005

[35]   Swan, K. (2003). Developing Social Presence in Online Discussions. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and Teaching with Technology: Principles and Practices (pp. 147-164). London: Kogan.

[36]   Tuovinen, J. E. (2000). Multimedia Distance Education Interactions. Educational Media International, 37, 16-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095239800361473

[37]   Wegerif, R. (1998). The Social Dimension of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2, 34-49.

[38]   Zemel, A., Xhafa, F., & Cakir, M. (2007). What’s in the Mix? Combining Coding and Conversation Analysis to Investigate Chat-Based Problem Solving. Learning and Instruction, 17, 405-415.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.006