Methods for Analyzing Computer-Mediated Communication in Educational Sciences

Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) is the process by which individuals can exchange information, communicate with each other in multiple ways, and socially construct knowledge by means of networked information and communication technologies (Gunawerdana et al., 1997). CMC tools record transcripts of messages and interactions and provide researchers with a “ready-made” source of data. Today, researchers are seeking for alternative theories, methods, and software tools in order to better investigate CMC and its effect on different learning outcomes (Garrison, 2000). In order to understand the learning process in CMC, content analysis, and sequential analysis (interaction analysis), Jeong (2005) offers a methodological framework to explore the discussion process, product, and quality. Therefore, in this chapter, the authors aim to provide guidance for scholars and practitioners by referring to the basics of the two complementary methods (content analysis and sequential analysis), pitfalls, challenges, as well as strategies and implications of the methods. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3918-8.ch013

[1]  Jeroen Janssen,et al.  Multilevel analysis in CSCL research , 2011 .

[2]  Curt J. Dommeyer,et al.  Comparing Two Forms of an E-mail Survey: Embedded vs Attached , 2000 .

[3]  Sanna Järvelä,et al.  Analyzing CMC content for what? , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[4]  R. Kolbe,et al.  Content-Analysis Research: An Examination of Applications with Directives for Improving Research Reliability and Objectivity , 1991 .

[5]  M. Couper,et al.  Web Surveys , 2001 .

[6]  Regina O. Smith.  The paradox of trust in online collaborative groups , 2008 .

[7]  C. Hmelo‐Silver,et al.  Analyzing Interactions in CSCL , 2011 .

[8]  Harvey Mellar,et al.  A methodology for the analysis of patterns of participation within computer mediated communication courses , 1996 .

[9]  Elizabeth Murphy,et al.  Contrasting syntactic and semantic units in the analysis of online discussions , 2005 .

[10]  Huei-Tse Hou,et al.  Analyzing the Learning Process of an Online Role-Playing Discussion Activity , 2012, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[11]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Characterizing the sequential structure of interactive behaviors through statistical and grammatical techniques , 1994 .

[12]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Sequential Analysis of Scientific Argumentation in Asynchronous Online Discussion Environments , 2011 .

[13]  Elizabeth Stacey,et al.  A purposive approach to content analysis: Designing analytical frameworks , 2005, Internet High. Educ..

[14]  Miika Marttunen,et al.  Electronic Mail as a Forum for Argumentative Interaction in Higher Education Studies , 1998 .

[15]  Stefania Kalogeraki.  On the Benefits and Constraints of the Web-based Illicit Drug Survey , 2012 .

[16]  Allan Jeong.  The Sequential Analysis of Group Interaction and Critical Thinking in Online , 2003 .

[17]  Sheng-Yi Wu,et al.  Analyzing the social knowledge construction behavioral patterns of an online synchronous collaborative discussion instructional activity using an instant messaging tool: A case study , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[18]  B Downe-Wamboldt,et al.  Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. , 1992, Health care for women international.

[19]  José Bidarra,et al.  Current Developments and Best Practice in Open and Distance Learning , 2000 .

[20]  Curtis J. Bonk,et al.  Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course , 2000 .

[21]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  Representational Tools for Understanding Complex Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments , 2011 .

[22]  J. Enriquez.  Discontent with content analysis of online transcripts , 2009 .

[23]  Martha Cleveland-Innes,et al.  Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability , 2006, Internet High. Educ..

[24]  M. Banerjee,et al.  Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures , 1999 .

[25]  Gayle V. Davidson-Shivers,et al.  The Effects of Gender Interaction Patterns on Student Participation in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation , 2006 .

[26]  Charlotte N. Gunawardena,et al.  Analysis of a Global Online Debate and the Development of an Interaction Analysis Model for Examining Social Construction of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing , 1997 .

[27]  Paul J. Yoder,et al.  Empirical Guidance for Time-Window Sequential Analysis of Single Cases , 2004 .

[28]  D. Garrison,et al.  Methodological Issues in the Content Analysis of Computer Conference Transcripts , 2007 .

[29]  R. Garrison.  Theoretical Challenges for Distance Education in the 21st Century: A Shift from Structural to Transactional Issues , 2000 .

[30]  John Gardner,et al.  Content analysis of computer conferencing transcripts , 2011, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[31]  Alec M. Bodzin,et al.  Dialogue Patterns of Preservice Science Teachers Using Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication , 2000 .

[32]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[33]  Amy B. Woszczynski,et al.  The Handbook of Information Systems Research , 2003 .

[34]  W. James Potter,et al.  Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis , 1999 .

[35]  Sarah Schrire,et al.  Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[36]  Jennifer J McComas,et al.  Calculating contingencies in natural environments: issues in the application of sequential analysis. , 2009, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[37]  Nancy L Kondracki,et al.  Content analysis: review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. , 2002, Journal of nutrition education and behavior.

[38]  Kuo-En Chang,et al.  Exploring the behavioral patterns of an online knowledge-sharing discussion activity among teachers with problem-solving strategy , 2009 .