|
Article Excerpt
This article discusses the processes of interaction among learners in higher education using a model of content analysis to examine their social construction of knowledge through computer-mediated communications. We examined students' conference transcripts for evidence that their collaborative communicative acts generated constructions of new knowledge. This study was conducted over a period of 14 weeks, at the end of which students were asked to describe their feelings as learners and discussion leaders as well as providing explanations for their communicative actions. We modeled our analysis on Gunawardena, Lowe, and Anderson's (1997) study. Our results indicated that the volume of student interaction was predominantly in the category of sharing and comparing information, that was significantly higher that the category of constructing knowledge. In our study, we asked what the outcome of student communicative strategies meant with respect to the quality of their learning experience and examined the viability of the model as a content analysis tool in an educational context.
**********
Computer-mediated communications (CMC) is recognised as a medium of learning that is highly interactive and capable of supporting interaction and collaboration between learners. As such, it is often aligned with social constructivist principles. However, hard evidence linking CMC to social constructivism has not been fully supported by research, as the majority of studies were often anecdotal or descriptions centering around individual experiences (Anglin & Morrison, 2000; Stein, 2000). Drawing on small samples of discourse data, these studies often do not accurately describe the cognitive processes of the students nor illustrate how knowledge develops and grows across time and across topics. Not surprisingly, CMC researchers continue to urge further investigation into the quality of student learning through CMC (Blake & Rapanotti, 2001).
Social interaction is one of the most important components of the learning experience in learning premised on social constructivist principles (Ernest, 1995; Fredericksen, Pickett, & Shea, 2001; Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995; Kumari, 2001; Picciano, 2002; Tobin & Tippins, 1993). Interaction, using language as a tool of mediation among a community of learners, becomes a social mode of thinking where students learn by engaging in dialogue (Van Boxtel, 2000). However, researchers and practitioners have found that traditional teacher-centred learning environments emphasising the role of the all-knowing teacher are still prevalent in most online learning environments (Dehony & Reeves, 1999; Jonassen et al., 1995; McDonald, 2002; O'Malley, 1999; Oliver & Omari, 2001). Online educators have also found that students' postings often lack interactive characteristics (Davis & Rouzie, 2002; Morgan, 1996). This suggests that a more concerted approach to research is required to understand how students interact online as well as factors affecting their interaction. This will assist with the development of more effective instructional strategies and better use of the technology. According to CMC researchers, one of the most powerful methods of investigation is content analysis of conference transcripts (Blake & Rapanotti, 2001; Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson, 1997; Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000; Henri, 1992; Mason, 1992; Jones, Scanlon, & Blake, 2000; Romiszowski & Mason, 1996). This is due to content analysis providing researchers with a direct means to understand the processes of teaching and learning, the quality of interactions, and the relationship between interaction and knowledge construction (Gunawardena et al., 1997). However, this method is scarcely used although conference data is most readily available to researchers. One reason is the lack of a reliable model of content analysis. Another equally important reason, according to Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer (2001), is the intensity of time and labour required to organise the volume of data, identify an appropriate unit of analysis, and code the transcripts into suitable categories. Nevertheless, given the increasing use of CMC as an educational medium, including the globalisation of online education (Mason, 2000), there is a compelling need to understand the quality of student interaction and construction of knowledge.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
In seeking to understand the quality of student interaction, this study primarily addressed the following questions: (a) To what extent did students' communicative strategies result in coconstruction of knowledge? and (b) What is the quality of their online learning experience? Communicative strategies are defined as methods of interaction, which students engaged in with one another in order to socially coconstruct knowledge, change understanding, or create new personal knowledge. Following the advice of CMC researchers (Blake & Rapanotti, 2001; Curtis & Lawson, 2001; Gunawardena et al., 1997), this study used content analysis of conference transcripts. Specifically, it uses the Gunawardena et al. (1997) model of content analysis to identify student communicative strategies and thus, understand the processes and quality of their learning experiences. This model was developed using social constructivist perspectives, as was the perspective underpinning this current study. The secondary purpose of this study was to examine the use and viability of this model in an educational context. The study reported in this article is part of a larger study which investigated the processes of student interaction, the quality of their learning experiences, and the contextual factors impacting upon their learning. Within the larger study which used various qualitative approaches, this study used Glaser and Strauss' (1967) constant comparative method of grounded theory to code for student communicative strategies.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The researchers' learning and teaching philosophy is social constructivist. Therefore, they believe that education should be based on student-centred approaches where students and teachers assume joint responsibilities for learning in a context that is relevant and meaningful (Bonk & Dennen, 2003; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Jonassen et al., 1995; Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Wenger, 1998). In this approach, students share and construct knowledge on the basis of their past experiences and critically examine their learning (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999; McDonald, 2002; Simons, 2000; Tobin, 1993). The key to student-centred learning is interaction and negotiation of meaning (Ernest, 1994, 1995). Although the significance of CMC, in relation to the social constructivist theory is well documented in research literature (Berge & Collins, 1995; Blanton, Moorman, & Trathern, 1998; Jonassen & Reeves, 1996), the research relationship is often tentative.
An extensive review of the literature indicates that Gunawardena et al. (1997) and Kanuka and Anderson's (1998) studies provided this study with a useful framework for the initial analysis of the qualitative data. However, although the present study drew on the authors' studies and used their model of content analysis, it is nevertheless unique in several ways: (a) it is research on a postgraduate course that was conducted entirely online in a university setting among graduate students and an instructor. Gunawardena et al.'s (1997) study was conducted on a large group of distance education professionals in a list-serve using a debate format, which was somewhat limited from an educational perspective. On the other hand, Kanuka and Anderson's study was limited to a professional development course. Thus, the model has not been previously used to analyse student interaction in higher education; (b) it seeks to analyse the quality of interaction from a hermeneutic understanding which, according to Taylor and Dawson (1998), are insights into the meaning perspective of others. In this study, hermeneutic understanding was generated through literature from past studies, observations, active participation, evaluation questionnaires, and open-ended questions to students; (c) both researchers in this study were active participants in the unit investigated, therefore had direct experiences of the events. The importance of being participants is recommended by Patton (1990) to enhance hermeneutic understanding. Additionally, Erickson (1986) and Merriam (1998) advised researchers who want to examine the meanings of those involved in interaction to get close to the setting and examine carefully the everyday events and actions as they unfold in a learning environment.
METHODOLOGY
The content analysis in this study was used to address the concerns raised by CMC researchers about the lack of rigorous methods of inquiry and the imbalance of methods used in this area of learning (Gunawardena et al., 1997; Hara et al., 2000; Rourke et al., 2001). By far, empirical experimentations dominate interpretive inquiries. While quantitative methods are useful to evaluate characteristics of CMC for learning, qualitative methods help to illuminate the learning process. In reviewing CMC studies, which used content analysis, Rourke et al. highlighted several aspects requiring attention, especially with respect to qualitative inquiries, which is the focus of this study. They are: (a) clarifying the theoretical framework at the outset of the study, (b) selecting the unit of analysis, and (c) considering issues of reliability. These issues are discussed below.
The Theoretical Framework
The aim of the inquiry is to understand the various strategies students used to interact with one another for the purpose of constructing knowledge. In view of this aim, social constructivism was used as a theoretical framework because it views an individual's construction of knowledge as an interpretation rather than a correspondence to an external reality (Von Glasersfeld, 1990). According to proponents of social constructivist theory (Ernest, 1995; Jonassen et al., 1995; Tobin, 1993; Simons, 2000), when individuals come together, such as in an online learning environment, their construction undergoes continuous revision due to cognitive conflict which occurs as a result of different constructions among individuals within a social context. To resolve their conflict, students need to interact and negotiate meaning with one another.
In using social constructivism as a referent to investigate students' educational experiences, two interrelated elements are essential to the investigation of the quality of the learning experiences in this study: the establishment and presence of a community of learners, and the nature of discourse within the community. Within this framework, education is seen as a social learning experience (Barab & Duffy, 2000; Garrison, 1993) where negotiation of meaning and cocreation of knowledge occur. Operationally, we define interaction as the experience during which two or more parties engage in a collaborative effort to negotiate meaning and to form a unified body of knowledge.
The importance placed on interaction suggests that knowledge and creation take place on both a personal as well as social levels (Jonassen et al., 1995; Van Boxtel, 2000). There is no division between individual subjects and their social milieu because "social constructivism regards individual subjects and the social realm as interconnected" (Ernest, 1995, p. 479). This idea of communication suggests the intersubjectivity between the individual, other people, and the surrounding environment (Barab & Duffy, 2000; Tobin & Tippins, 1993). As Vygotsky (1978) postulated, one's social environment is a critical factor in one's cognitive development, leading Rorty (1991) to suggest that knowledge construction should be seen as a matter of conversation and social practice. Following this theoretical...
|
