Analyzing Responses, Moves, and Roles in Online Discussions

There is much debate regarding the value and utility of grading discussions to ensure and assess full participation in the online classroom. Proponents of threaded discussions view it as an integral part of the learning process, where students seek knowledge and express understanding. Consequently, they deem it essential to assess participation. On the other hand, opponents of assessing or grading participation assert that an exceedingly active discussion can distract students from other equally or more important coursework, not to mention the impracticality of instructors responding to the vast number of submissions. This article examines a variety of grading rubrics used to promote critical thinking about course content and assess the quality of participation and contributions of online threaded discussions. We present the results of a study conducted at a historically Black institution that used Kneser’s Exchange Structure Analysis (ESA) to analyze dialogue in order to understand student exchanges, moves, and roles as well as the influence of gender in online discussions during 3 consecutive summer sessions.

[1]  Jim Hewitt.  Toward an Understanding of How Threads Die in Asynchronous Computer Conferences , 2005 .

[2]  Scott McLean,et al.  Sociodemographic Characteristics of Learners and Participation in Computer Conferencing , 2000 .

[3]  I. E. Allen,et al.  Making the Grade: Online Education in the United States, 2006. , 2006 .

[4]  C. Kneser,et al.  The Tutor's Role: An investigation of the power of Exchange Structure Analysis to identify different roles in CMC seminars , 2001 .

[5]  Nada Dabbagh,et al.  How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: a case study , 2005, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[6]  Chi-Cheng Chang,et al.  A Case Study on the Relationships between Participation in Online Discussion and Achievement of Project Work , 2008 .

[7]  Gudrun Oberprieler,et al.  Encouraging equitable online participation through curriculum articulation , 2004, Comput. Educ..

[8]  Gail Crombie,et al.  Students' Perceptions of Their Classroom Participation and Instructor as a Function of Gender and Context , 2003 .

[9]  Wendy A. McKenzie,et al.  "I hope this goes somewhere": Evaluation of an online discussion group , 2000 .

[10]  D. Poh.  AusWeb 2002, The Eighth Australian World Wide Web Conference, held in Twin Waters Resort, Sunshine Coast, Queensland from July 6-10, 2002 , 2002 .

[11]  J. Michael Spector,et al.  Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3rd Edition , 2012 .

[12]  Jim Hewitt.  How Habitual Online Practices Affect the Development of Asynchronous Discussion Threads , 2003 .

[13]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , 2000 .

[14]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Constructivism and computer‐mediated communication in distance education , 1995 .

[15]  Dawn M. Poole.  Student Participation in a Discussion-Oriented Online Course , 2000 .

[16]  Allan Jeong.  A Guide to Analyzing Message–Response Sequences and Group Interaction Patterns in Computer‐mediated Communication , 2005 .

[17]  R. M. Hall,et al.  Out of the Classroom: A Chilly Campus Climate for Women?. , 1984 .

[18]  Vic Lally,et al.  Gender differences in an on-line learning environment , 1999, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[19]  Gayle V. Davidson-Shivers,et al.  Gender Differences: Are They Diminished in Online Discussions? , 2003 .

[20]  Eino Sierpe,et al.  Gender and participation in computer-mediated LIS education topical discussions : An examination of JESSE, the Library/Information Science Education Forum , 2001 .

[21]  J. Sinclair,et al.  Towards an analysis of discourse , 1977 .

[22]  Monique Hanslo,et al.  From peripheral to full participation in a blended trade bargaining simulation , 2004, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[23]  Simeon Yates,et al.  Gender, language and CMC for education , 2001 .

[24]  Lisa Lobry de Bruyn,et al.  Monitoring online communication: can the development of convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment? , 2004 .

[25]  Stuart R. Palmer,et al.  Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally assessed online discussion on final student results , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[26]  Paola Celentin.  Online Education: Analysis of Interaction and Knowledge Building Patterns among Foreign Language Teachers. , 2007 .

[27]  R. Pilkington.  Analysing Educational Dialogue Interaction: Towards Models that Support Learning , 2001 .

[28]  Mary K. Tallent-Runnels,et al.  Raising the bar: Encouraging high level thinking in online discussion forums , 2004 .

[29]  Christopher Essex,et al.  Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education , 2001 .

[30]  Stephen J. Bostock *,et al.  Gender in student online discussions , 2005 .

[31]  Linda M. Harasim.  Technology Transfer in Global Networking: Capacity Building in Africa and Latin America , 1993 .

[32]  B. Davis.  Tools for Teaching , 1993 .

[33]  Joanna Wolfe.  Gender, Ethnicity, and Classroom Discourse , 2000 .

[34]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Constructivism: Implications for the Design and Delivery of Instruction , 1996 .

[35]  Allan Jeong,et al.  How day of posting affects level of critical discourse in asynchronous discussions and computer-supported collaborative argumentation , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[36]  Richard Pringle,et al.  The Role of Gender in College Classroom Interactions: A Social Context Approach , 1995 .

[37]  Myra Sadker,et al.  Failing at fairness : how America's schools cheat girls , 1995 .