A Discourse Analysis of the Online Mathematics Classroom

Abstract Thirteen online mathematics classes were analyzed using a discourse coding system created by Bellack et al. (1966). Findings suggest that the ratio of teacher-to-student discourse is far lower in online than in face-to-face classes and varies widely from instructor to instructor. A strong positive correlation was shown between instructor posts and posts per student. Results point to the value of a particular kind of instructor presence in an online class and refute the idea that more collaboration occurs in the absence of an instructor. Instructor posts that were evaluative (by rating, clarifying, and expanding what was said) had a positive correlation with posts per student, and when the instructor's evaluations contained more mathematics, so did the student's. Direct answers from the instructor, on the other hand, correlated negatively with posts per student. The ideal style to encourage student posts, collaboration, and engagement with the material seems to be a gentle Socratic questioning.

[1]  S. Schrire.  Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing , 2004 .

[2]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .

[3]  Laura Henriques.  A study to define and verify a model of interactive-constructive elementary school science teaching , 1997 .

[4]  D. Garrison,et al.  Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough , 2005 .

[5]  E. Jones..  The language of the classroom. , 1983, Nursing mirror.

[6]  Patterns of verbal communication in mathematics classes , 1970 .

[7]  Karen B. Givvin,et al.  Teaching Mathematics in Seven Countries: Results From the TIMSS 1999 Video Study , 2003 .

[8]  Patrick J. Fahy,et al.  Patterns of Interaction in a Computer Conference Transcript , 2001 .

[9]  Timothy J. Newby,et al.  Using Socratic Questioning to Promote Critical Thinking Skills Through Asynchronous Discussion Forums in Distance Learning Environments , 2005 .

[10]  ReiterEhud,et al.  Squibs and discussions , 2002 .

[11]  Rena M. Palloff,et al.  Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom: The Realities of Online Teaching , 2001 .

[12]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[13]  Curtis J. Bonk,et al.  Communication in a web-based conferencing system: the quality of computer-mediated interactions , 2003, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[14]  Patrick J. Fahy,et al.  Student Learning Style and Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Conferencing (CMC) Interaction , 2005 .

[15]  Robert M. Bernard,et al.  How Does Distance Education Compare With Classroom Instruction? A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature , 2004 .

[16]  B. Everitt,et al.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .

[17]  Barbara Di Eugenio,et al.  Squibs and Discussions: The Kappa Statistic: A Second Look , 2004, CL.

[18]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective , 2006 .

[19]  M. Lombard,et al.  Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability , 2002 .

[20]  Elizabeth Stacey,et al.  Interactive Television in Schools: An Australian Study of the Tensions of Educational Technology and Change , 2001 .

[21]  Kees van Deemter,et al.  Squibs and Discussions , 2001 .

[22]  David Clarke,et al.  Initiating and Eliciting in Teaching: A Reformulation of Telling. , 2005 .