|
Article Excerpt
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies are becoming increasingly important components of online educational environments (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004). The online discussion forum that is a significant component of many web-based courses is one type of CMC. Instructors and students rely on these asynchronous forums to engage one another in ways that replace face-to-face communication. The goal of such interactions is to promote critical thinking, meaningful problem solving, and knowledge construction (Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns, & Beers, 2004). In spite of the importance of these forums, the most common methods for assessing the content and outcomes of these forums have often been limited to frequency counts and other quantitative measures (Mason, 1992; Romiszowski & Mason, 2004). In order to assess any meaning that results from these discussions, it is necessary to perform some kind of semantic analysis of them. This article provides an overview of current methods of quantitative and qualitative research paradigms for analyzing the content of asynchronous computer-mediated discussion forums. For each analysis method we describe the research method, provide an example of a research study that used that method, describe the types of questions that this method can address, and compare the methods in terms of validity and reliability. Researchers and instructors will be able to use this analysis to become familiar with the choices available and make decisions about appropriate methods for analyzing CMC forums.
**********
In discussing online learning, Harasim (1989) describes interactivity as the most striking characteristic of CMC and the factor with the greatest potential to impact learning. Carswell, Thomas, Petre, Price and Richards' (2000) study comparing undergraduate students in Internet and face-to-face sections of computer science course provides support for this claim. Learning results were similar for both groups, but the CMC group experienced increased interactions with fellow students and tutors. Similarly, Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001) describe the importance in online learning of creating a virtual community of inquiry which allows learners to construct experiences and knowledge through analysis of the subject matter, questioning, and challenging assumptions. In a face-to-face environment, this kind of reflection is often accomplished via synchronous, interactive discussions and problem-solving sessions. Web-based learning courses must rely on online discussion forums to create these interactions.
Traditionally, educational communications have been grounded in an oral, face-to-face (F2F) tradition. Garrison et al. (2001) describe such communications as being fast-paced, spontaneous, and often less structured than written communications. When working in groups, participants perceive F2F communication as more effective and satisfying than computer-mediated group work (Olaniran, Savate, & Sorenson, 1996) mainly because F2F groups can more easily spend time on such tasks as clarifying and defining responsibilities (Warkentin, Sayeed, & Hightower, 1997). Further, when implemented in properly moderated discussions, oral communication has been shown to support the development of critical thinking skills (Garrison et al., 2001).
One significant way F2F and asynchronous communications differ is in terms of the strategies used to manage the conversation. For instance Condon and Cech (1996) found that in CMC, participants who were trying to increase communication efficiency and decrease typing requirements also decreased the use of unneeded elaborative statements and repetitions. Compared to F2F problem solving sessions, Jonassen and Kwon (2001) found that computer mediated discussion contained significantly fewer off-task postings. This finding confirms Garrison et al.'s (2001) description of written communications (as used in online discussions) as being leaner because many of the non-verbal signals present in face-to-face oral communication are missing (e.g., body language, pauses). However, even without the richness of the discussions found in F2F discussions, McCreary posits that the value of written communication such as used in online discussion forums comes from the necessity of exactness, organization of thought, and clear expression (1990).
Being text-based, the online forum, provides a unique opportunity to conduct learning research as these forums have the potential to make thinking and reasoning visible both to participants and researchers (Asbell-Clarke & Foster, 2004). Further, even though many acknowledge the critical role CMC discussion forums can play in web-based courses, little empirical evidence confirms that text-based communication used in computer conferencing can facilitate higher-order and critical thinking.
Although CMC is described as being leaner than face-to-face, CMC has the ability to promote knowledge construction and meaningful learning. Asynchronous CMC may promote knowledge construction because online environments emphasize student-centered interaction through collaboration with other students. It is through these interactions that learners construct their knowledge and can learn more effectively (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004). There is limited evidence that CMC can facilitate higher-order thinking (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). However earlier research provides more positive predictions of the potential impact of online forums on meaningful learning. Specifically, these studies indicated that participation in online forums could lead to broader and deeper participation in group activities (Kiesler, Siefel, & McGuire, 1984; Pullinger, 1986; Spitzer, 1989, as cited in Mazur, 2004). More recently, Jonassen and Kwon (2001) reported that during group problem-solving activities, the CMC participants produced fewer, but more task-related messages than a F2F group. In addition, the CMC group's decision-making patterns were more sophisticated than that of the F2F group. In this article, we argue that one reason for the relatively small number of studies addressing meaningful learning via online discussion forums is the lack of proven research paradigms in this domain.
An early exception to CMC evaluation models was Henri's work (1992) that examined the quality of online postings by focusing on four dimensions--social (e.g., "I'm feeling great today"), interactive (statements that refer to other postings), metacognitive (statements about reasoning), and cognitive. The cognitive dimension is broken down into five types of reasoning skills: elementary clarification, in-depth clarification, inference, judgment, and strategies. But this portion of the model goes further. Specifically, Henri emphasizes that it is insufficient to simply examine the skills demonstrated in message content, but rather one must look for evidence of the level of information processing. Unlike prior schemes, Henri's model defines not only the types of skills and interactions demonstrated in online postings, but also attempts to qualitatively define the nature and content of online interactions that evidence cognitive development and meaningful learning. Henri's model has provided researchers with a structure for many ensuing qualitative analysis methods.
As this summary describes, the online forum is seen as an important if not crucial component of online courses. Reeves, Herrington and Oliver (2004) describe the forum's potentially critical role in creating meaningful online collaborative learning environments. Reeves et al. (2004) call for new research directions to provide both researchers and practitioners with better guidelines on how to effectively implement meaningful online learning environments. Given the centrality of the forum, both researchers and practitioners have a stake in examining the characteristics and content of online forum as one component in research and evaluation efforts regarding the impact and effect of participating in online learning activities.
As we show in this article, the methods for assessing online discussion forums have evolved as have the underlying assumptions associated with these methods. Because researchers and practitioners are seeking to answer questions associated with participation and content of online forums, we provide an overview of the current analysis tools and methods available to them. In the following sections describing methods for conducting such analysis, we provide examples of research that use each method and then compare the methods relative to the research questions each is best suited to answer.
CMC Discussion Research Methods
This review of methods for analyzing computer-mediated discussion forums focuses only on methods that use the actual CMC forum content as the direct source of data to be analyzed (e.g., content analysis); thus methodologies that use self-report data about the CMC forum are not included (1). CMC forum analysis methods can be categorized as: quantitative (e.g., descriptive statistics), qualitative content analysis, user-classified forum content via constrained CMC forums, and sequential analysis that combines both quantitative and qualitative methods. Although not intended to be a comprehensive treatment, for each category we review predominantly used methods.
Quantitative--Descriptive Statistics
In her review of evaluation methodologies of computer conferencing, Mason (1992) reports that the most often used evaluation method for online discussion forums was "computer-generated statistics about logons, messages sent and read, levels of participation and number and length of entries" (p. 112). Early CMC researchers relied upon the computer's ability to record frequencies and interactions for their data (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004).
Many CMC interactions now take place within course management software packages such as Blackboard or WebCT that provide access to quantitative data easily. According to the edu-tools website (http://www.edu-tools.info/course/compare/index.jsp) that provides product comparisons of online course delivery systems, many systems offer student tracking features that allow instructors to track student logons and their usage of course materials, however, providing descriptive statistics of discussion forum usage is not even listed as a comparison feature. A further search revealed that some tools, such as FirstClass (www.firstclass.com) do produce log files containing data about the activity of individual participants. However, their web site does not provide details on the nature of these files. Further, new tools that support constrained or scaffolded discussion forums--which are forums that enforce a structure on the nature on participants' contributions (Jonassen & Remidez, 2005)--are often accompanied with more sophisticated tools for analyzing the quantitative and qualitative nature of those contributions. One such product is Knowledge Forum (www.knowledgeforum.com) that provides a scaffolded discussion forum environment. Although it does not produce participant data,...
|
