H.-J. So (2009)
When groups decide to use asynchronous online discussions: collaborative learning and social presence under a voluntary participation structure.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25,2, 143-160
Interesting points: Uptake of CMC interplay of technical & pedagogical factors; participation & design.
Definitions CSCL( good one on meaning making), social presence ( as a perception? real? salience? community & therefore belonging?) collaboration ( less structured than collective)
Methodological instruments:
Collaborative – 5 categories, planning, contributing, seeking input, technology, social interaction) with sub codes eg challenging, explaining
Questionnaire on relevant ICT experience (?how does it compare with KROs)
Thematic analysis of interviews ( KRO whether appropriate)
Social presence – modification of Rourke
Findings :
3 themes pointing to complex picture ( see quote on this)
little advantage taken of challenging, explaining etc during collaboration i.e. low level of critical behaviour)
social presence indicator patterns depended on group ( different also to KRO with careers)
CMC uptake
P143 ‘ the phenomenon of wide adoption and utilization is explained by the interplay of technical and pedagogical factors. From technical perspectives the simplicity of usage of online discussion, easy access and compatibility with existing practices are important attributes ‘ Instructors can use them to extend discussion beyond the classroom’.
Aim
P144 ‘ a better understanding of the nature of participation and collaborative learning’ by looking at
RQs ( based on the proposition that different participation and motivation conditions may reveal different interactional and dialogic patterns)
- How do groups decide to use CMC tools in the first place? Used self-reported surveys and face-to-face interviews.
- Once a group decision is made, how do group members participate in asynchronous discussion forums to complete collaborative learning tasks? Content analysis
Levels of analysis
- ‘Students’ experiences and perceptions of online discussion forums were collected, both in self-reported surveys and face-to-face interviews, to examine the reasons behind how groups arrive at making decisions with regard to using or not using CMC tools under the conditions whrein these students were taking blended learning-format course.’
- ‘more closely examined how members in voluntary groups participated in online discussion forums to complete a group project requiring fairly complex data gathering and research processes. For this micro-level content analysis this research is particularly interested in two constructs collaborative learning and social presence.’
Topics & Definitions ( from literature review)
CSCL ‘ a field of study centrally concerned with meaning and the practices of meaning making in the context of joint activity, and the ways in which these practices are mediated through designed artefacts’ (Koschmann 2002, p.18).
Participation p145 ‘ is not a taken for granted fact’
Guzdial & Truns (2000) approached participation as s design challenge.
Hewitt (2005, p575) gradual death of a thread is affected by a ‘single pass strategy’ p145 ‘referiing to users’ habitual routine of paying attention to new postings and neglecting postings read or posted earlier’ – prevents progressive knowledge building. KRO – summaries? As a design feature, rise above it cf Jackie’s style.
Thompson & Savenye (2007) and others p145 ‘students tend to adopt an eclectic and efficient approach’
Socio-affective dimensions in asynchronous learning: collaboration and social presence.
Collaborative cf cooperative learning. Collaborative learning tends to be less structured and student led whilst cooperative is usually based on specialisation of task which is designed into the activity therefore less opportunity for mutual engagement.
P146 ‘ in the content analysis of collaborative online learning, they found that there were generally fewer codes for challenge and explanation interaction’
Social presence
- Short et al, 1976, p 65 ( social psychologists) ‘degree of salience of the other person in the interactions and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships’
- Gunawardena & Zittle (1997, p9) in the context of communication that is mediated by a computer ‘ the degree which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’
- Rourke et al, 1999 ,p50 ‘ the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry’ instrument for measuring 3 categories; affective, interactive, cohesive.
- Tu and McIssac (2002, p131 a learner centred definition ‘ a measure of the feeling of community that a learner experiences in an online environment’
- Authors view, partially based on the literature review. P147 ‘ social presence as a learner’s psychological perception of other learners as well as of media capabilities’ KRO what about learner real life context?
Method
Participants:
student worked on a collaborative project throughout the semester and various CMC tools were available to facilitate students’ online collaboration. 3-5 particpants per group, 12 groups therefore groups who did opt for CMc and those that did not.
Instruments :
RQ1 CMC Questionnaire (Tu and McIssac, 2002) descriptive information regarding level of profiency, experience with CMC tools (email, threaded discussion, real-time chat).
Hours using CMC tools
RQ2 Interview (9 (16%) randomly selected) Open ended questions eg ;how did you group members collaborate online to complete the group project’. Thematic analysis & also content analysis for the two voluntarily participating groups using two coding schemes. For collaborative behaviour Curtis & Lawson(2001) – 5 categories planning, contributing, seeking input, technology, social interaction. For social presence used Rourke, 3 categories affective, interactive, & cohesive. Nb these coding schemes were modified for the purpose of this study ( no details given as to why). Two coders , used Holsti’s intercoder reliability & Cohen’s Kappa.
Results
- RQ1 How do groups decide to use CMC tools in the first place? Used self-reported surveys and face-to-face interviews.
- No apparent relation between uptake & previous experience of CMC .
- 5/12 groups did not use the forums at all, postings varied from 1 – 128 in the other 7 groups.
a. Prior/ initial experience of CMC
Successful prior or initial use of CMC , encouragement from members who have successful prior experience., voluntary use became the norm
Unsuccessful prior or intial use led to using other forms of communication ie email, face to face, phone. And these methods became the norm. note comment about feeling that other participants might be multitasking in online chat and therefore not applying full attention.
b. Perceived affordances
voluntary uptake – convenience of any time, any place, & access to archives
no uptake – delayed feedback & lack of immediate interaction for the more complex communications. (KRO ? where the emotional dimension may come in)
c. Interplay between the nature of the collaborative tasks and the perceived efficiency
students felt they could achieve more and quicker face to face when possible conflicts or miscommunications amongst group members were minimized. P152 quote in the first column , that tended to politeness more online therefore if disagreement preferred to meet face to face.
P152 ‘ complex picture. Data showed that the decisions involved the interplay among the nature of collaborative tasks, group dynamics and perceived affordances of CMC technology and efficiency , rather than individual characteristics such as proficiency levels and prior experience with communication tools.’
- RQ2 Once a group decision is made, how do group members participate in asynchronous discussion forums to complete collaborative learning tasks? Content analysis
Based on the 2/12 groups who decided to use online discussion forums to complete their group projects’
Participation patterns by individual group members
The individuals who posted the highest number of messages seemed to act as group leaders who tended to assign other members to work on set tasks and also by providing frequent feedback to other postings.
One other participant remained confused by her role.
Sustained discussion by groups across time
Similar proportions for each of the categories ( planning, contributing, seeking input, technology, social interaction) across both groups. ( KRO similarity to the Careers paper)
High frequencies of planning activities ( e.g. arranging meetings) etc. Low frequencies of challenging(CH code), explaining elaborating(EX) while advocating effort (EF) was not identified in the transcripts of either group. see fig 1 p 154. High instances of reporting what one had done.
Social presence - Similar patterns across both groups with cohesive responses being the highest 57.5 & 63.8% , (which does not match the findings from the careers conference).
Collaboration and social presence patterns over time ( using the 3 stages planning, production & completion as the anchor points)
P155 ‘ Group A showed a decrease in interactive and cohesive behaviours over time while the affective factor increased slightly. On the other hand, all the social presence factors in Group B increased as studebts in that group worked on the collaborative project’
Conclusions
- RQ1 How do groups decide to use CMC tools in the first place? Used self-reported surveys and face-to-face interviews.
P157 ‘ the decision process is rather complex, involving the interplay of several factors, including the nature of the collaborative tasks, the perceived affordances of CMC tools and the perceived efficiency of communication methods. First and previous impressions also played a part’
- RQ2 Once a group decision is made, how do group members participate in asynchronous discussion forums to complete collaborative learning tasks? Content analysis
Lack of challenging and self-disclosing behaviours. P158 quotes other research that report low levels of critical behaviour patterns online. Also that high level cogniotive skills are rarely shown unless structured interventions are applied’
Frequency of social presence can eith increase or decereas over time, this fits with other research reports.
