Peters, V., & Hewitt,J. (2010)
An investigation of student practices in asynchronous computer conferencing courses.
Computers & Education, 54(4), 951-961
Moment by moment participation
‘Little is known about the moment-to-moment behaviours of students as they participate in asynchronous discussions’.
‘Both social presence and transactional distance focus heavily on how students perceive, and interact with, their instructor and classmates.
These constructs have proven to be useful for studying collaborative processes within online environments, but they fail to explain,
on a more fundamental level, what students actually do when they login to a computer conferencing course, and why they do it.’
Aim
to better understand these processes. ‘For example, when students log onto a conference, how do they decide which messages to read? How do they decide which messages to respond to? What are their goals, and what kinds of strategies do they develop to reach those goals? In short, how do students
navigate the complex world of a computer conferencing course?10 Interviews’
Methods
Interviews and a questionnaire; graduate students
Results
Two major themes emerged from the analysis of the transcripts: Overload (strategies-participate frequently, skim messages, focus on a single thread, read messages selectively) and Insecurity. ( strategies for making a positive impression on the instructor, participate early, try to figure out what the instructor wants to hear, focus on your interests, sound knowledgeable)
Conclusions p959
‘This study investigated the online behaviours of students enrolled in graduate-level distance education courses. Analyses of the data
identified a number of practices that students routinely employ when participating in a computer conference. More often than not, these
strategies were aimed at more effectively meeting course participation requirements. In light of the findings, it can be argued that students
are frequently motivated to participate in ways that emphasize workflow efficiency over advancing their understandings about course top-ics. In their interview and questionnaire responses, students did not discuss learning-related challenges, but rather focussed on the practical
challenges of reading large numbers of messages and writing messages that would help them secure a good participation grade. Many
of the strategies developed to accomplish these tasks (e.g., skimming or ignoring messages, writing about what you already know) arguably
serve to subvert learning goals rather than support them. Collectively, the practices identified in this research suggest that students may
not be fully realizing the constructivist affordances of asynchronous online discussions. To encourage students to engage in productive collaborative
exchanges in a computer conference, it may be necessary to restructure the design of CMC courses and software in ways that
focus students’ attention on learning outcomes rather than participation outcomes.
