0229590_C6FC0_solomon_negash_michael_e_whitman_amy_b_woszczynski_handbook

in higher education. Specifically, this chapter introduced a distance undergraduate course which exemplifies the rare yet innovative instructional application of moderated online synchronous interaction in virtual tutorials. Findings were presented and discussed regarding student experiences of chat interaction in virtual tutorials, focusing on the impact of the real-time CMC medium on participation and understanding of course content. Given the sociocultural constructivist view on learning, that interaction supports meaning negotiation that builds new knowledge, the availability of opportunities to participate is therefore considered essential to the learning process. Findings of different perceptions of the availability and exercise of participation opportunities during chat tutorials prompted further analyses which identified factors that affected participation in both tutorial groups. In addition, student perceptions of the extent to which the chat tutorial experience enhanced their understanding of content were found to be mixed. Three main factorscommontobothgroups—thesynchronous CMC medium; the presenter; and qualityofonline interaction—were found to both positively and negatively affect participation in discussions and understanding of course content.

The constructivist assumptions of this study locate it at the paradigmatic level within the qualitative research framework. Hence, the research processreflectsaninterpretiveapproachinvolving the study of phenomena in their natural settings in order to illuminate and gain greater understanding of the online learning processes of a single informative case. Such knowledge gained from theinterpretiveanalysisofparticipantself-reports corroborated by the chat transcript data are not claimed to be generalizable to wider populations.

However, implications drawn from the findings regarding the pedagogical design of online synchronous collaborative learning activities may be extrapolated, in the form of recommendations, to similar contexts “in the sense of pointing out lessons learned and potential applications to future efforts” (Patton, 2002, p. 584).

Chatting to Learn

Fromtheresearchreportedinthischapter,there arespecificrecommendationsforthepedagogical design of online collaborative learning activities. Since the three common factors transcend differences in groups and do not exclusively exert a positive or negative impact, it is recommended that the combinatory effect of these factors be considered in designing effective online col- laborative-constructivist group learning activities that encourage participation and minimize potential sources of frustration over the nature of chat interaction that may impede learning. More broadly, it is recommended that the design of learning environments should encompass physical and virtual instructional contexts, as in the case of the OI unit, to avoid reliance on any one mode which could needlessly limit the range of interactions permitted in distance educational programs. The hybrid course delivery design adopted by the OI unit enables educational interaction to be experienced via face-to-face lectures and online instructional contexts (chat tutorial room, bulletin board) facilitated by synchronous and asynchronous CMC technologies. The totality of the OI unit learning environment therefore supports participation in the sharing of individual understandingsthrougharangeofcommunication channels and contribution by learners at various levels of intensity.

These recommendations will be of interest to researchers concerned with the use of technology for online learning, higher education professionals responsible for the design and delivery of distance learning programmes, as well as promoters of educational technology who may benefit from a greater understanding of the role of synchronous CMC medium in supporting the learning process.

futuRe ReseaRch diRections

In its areas of inquiry, this study is essentially cross-disciplinary since it involves education, information and communication technology

Chatting to Learn

(ICT), andeducational technology,hence presenting several potential areas for future research in these fields.

The single-case study approach adopted by thisstudyenabled anin-depth investigation of one particularly informative case (the OI unit) and a comparison of the impact of chat interaction on the online learning process of two tutorial groups (i.e., G1 and G4) within the case. Although unique casesare,bydefinition,noteasilyavailable,there is scope for further research. Future studies could adopt a methodological design that encompasses all the tutorial groups available in the OI unit. Alternatively, the OI unit could be investigated in comparison to other units offering similar, albeit not identical, CMC facilitated learning contexts and experiences.

Given the hybrid or blended course delivery design of the OI unit, one tutorial group could be examined in greater depth in terms of the relationship between learning processes that are supported by the entire range of face-to-face, online asynchronous and synchronous instructional environments afforded by the OI unit. Additionally, the students could be surveyed at different intervals of the course, rather than once at the end of the semester, to investigate finer changes in their perceptions of learning experiences over an extended period of time. Such research efforts could yield valuable insights on the appropriate incorporation of the various CMC technologies in supporting online educational processes. Moreover,thefindingscouldprovidetimelyfeedbackto online tutors regarding the effective management of instructional events.

Finally, this study has mainly presented findings from the analysis of survey data on student perceptionsofonlinelearningexperiences.While self-reports of experiences offer one perspective on thephenomena, further insightcould be gained from the analyst’s interpretation of interactions from the transcripts of chat tutorial discussions. Further research effort in analyzing the synchronous computer-mediated discourse present in the

archived discussion logs could enable triangulation of methods and data that provides a more holistic and richer account of the construction of learning conversations.

RefeRences

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.

Armitt, G., Slack, F., Green, S., & Beer, M. (2002, January). The development of deep learning during a synchronous collaborative on-line course.

Paper presented at the CSCL 2002, Boulder, Colorado.

Booth, S., & Hulten, M. (2004). Opening dimensions of variation: An empirical study of learning in a Web-based discussion. In P. Goodyear, S. Banks, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.),

Advances in research on networked learning

(Vol. 4, pp. 153-174). MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Chou, C. (2002). A comparative content analysis of student interaction in synchronous and asynchronous learning networks. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.

Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004). Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two blended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 183-193.

Crook, C., & Light, P. (2002). Virtual society and the cultural practice of study. In S. Woolgar (Ed.),

Virtual society? Technology, cyberbole, reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2004). Complexity, theory and praxis: Researching collaborative learning and tutoring processes in networked

learning community. In P. Goodyear, S. Banks, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Advances in research on networked learning (Vol. 4, pp. 11-42). MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Introduction: Thedisciplineandpracticeofqualitativeresearch. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1-28). London: Sage Publications.

Dykes, M., & Schwier, R. (2003, Spring). Content and community redux: Instructor and student Interpretations of online communication in a graduate seminar. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(2).

Garrison, D. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of re- flectiveinquiry,self-directionandmetacognition.

InJ.Bourne&J.Moore(Eds.),Elementsofquality online education: Practice and direction (Vol. 4). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.

Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Criticalinquiryinatext-basedenvironment:Com- puter conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 1-14.

Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Criticalthinking,cognitivepresence,andcomputer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.

Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussions in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.

Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999). Students’ frustra- tionswithaWeb-baseddistanceeducationcourse.

First Monday, 4(12).

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Network learning: A paradigm for the twenty-first century. Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online (pp. 271278). Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.

Chatting to Learn

Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1).

Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4(4).

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123-1134.

Kneser, C., Pilkington, R., & Treasure-Jones, T. (2001). The tutor’s role: An investigation of the power of exchange structure analysis to identify different roles in CMC seminars. International

Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,

12, 63-84.

Kortti, H. (1999). On some similarities between discourse in the IRC and the conventions of spoken English. Retrieved 9 November, 2004, from http://www.student.oulu.fi/~hkortti/prose- minar-final.html

Lapadat, J. (2002). Written interaction: A key component in online learning. Journal of Com- puter-Mediated Communication, 7(4).

Lim, H. L. (2006). Constructing learning conversations: A study of the discourse and learner experiences of online synchronous discussions.

Unpublisheddoctoralthesis,MurdochUniversity, Perth, Australia.

McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (1999). Lonely outpourings or reasoned dialogue? An analysis of text-based conferencing as a tool to support learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 99, Brisbane, Australia.

Mercer, D. (2003). Using synchronous communication for online social constructivist learning.

Paper presented at the 2003 CADE-ACED Conference, St Johns, Newfoundland.

Chatting to Learn

Meyer, K. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65.

Meyer, K. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: Fourdifferentframesofanalysis.JournalofAsynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 101-114.

Moore,M.,&Kearsley,G.(1996).Distanceeducation: A systems view. CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Murphy, K., & Collins, M. (1997). Communication conventions in instructional electronic chats.

First Monday, 2(11).

Newman, D., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported co-operative learning.

Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 484-495.

Ngwenya, J., Annand, D., & Wang, E. (2004). Supporting asynchronous discussions among online learners. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning

(pp. 319-347). Canada: Athabasca University.

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student:

Aprofileandguidetoworkingwithonlinelearners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pilkington, R., Bennett, C., & Vaughan, S. (2000). An evaluation of computer mediated communication to support group discussion in continuing education. Educational Technology and Society, 3(3), 349-359.

Pilkington, R., & Walker, S. (2004). Facilitating debateinnetworkedlearning:Reflectingononline synchronous discussion in higher education. In P. Goodyear, S. Banks, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Advances in research on networked

learning (Vol. 4, pp. 67-90). MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Principia Products. (2005). Remark Web Survey® (Version 2) [Computer software]. Author.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.

Schwier, R., & Balbar, S. (2002, Spring). The interplay of content and community in synchronous and asynchronous communication: Virtual communication in a graduate seminar. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(2).

Spencer, D., & Hiltz, S. (2003). A field study of use of synchronous chat in online courses. Paper presented at the36thAnnualHawaiiInternational Conference in System Sciences (HICSS 03), Big Island, Hawaii.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sudweeks, F. (2003a). Promoting cooperation and collaboration in a Web-based learning environment. Paper presented at the 2003 Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference, Informing Science Institute, Santa Rosa, CA.

Sudweeks, F. (2003b). Connecting students with group work. In C. Constantinou & Z. Zacharia (Eds.), Computer-based learning in science (Vol. 1, pp. 173-183). Nicosia, Cyprus: University of Cyprus.

Sudweeks, F. (2003c). The reflective learner: A framework for reflective e-learning. Paper presented at the ICIER03, Seattle, WA.

Sudweeks, F. (2004). Development and leadership in computer-mediated collaborative groups.

Unpublisheddoctoralthesis,MurdochUniversity, Perth, Australia.

Sudweeks, F. (2005). Unit outline. Murdoch University, School of Information Technology.

Sudweeks, F., & Simoff, S. (2000). Participation and reflection in virtual workshops. Paper presented at the 3rd Western Australian Workshop on Information Systems Research, Perth, Australia.

Sudweeks, F., & Simoff, S. (2005). Leading conversations: Communication behaviour of emergentleadersinvirtualteams.Paperpresented at the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS05), Hawaii.

Thomas, B., Jones, P., Packham, G., & Miller, C. (2004, April 5-7). Student perceptions of effective e-moderation: A qualitative investigation of E- college Wales. Paper presented at the Networked LearningConference2004,LancasterUniversity, England.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2-3), 7-26.

Werry, C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet relay chat. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication (pp. 47-64). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

additional Reading

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2).

Chatting to Learn

Bonk, C. J., Daytner, K., Daytner, G., Dennen, V., & Malikowski, S. (2001). Using Web-based cases to enhance, extend, and transform pre-service teacher training: Two years in review. In C. D. Maddux & D. LaMont Johnson (Eds.), The Web in higher education: Assessing the impact and fulfilling the potential (pp. 189-211). New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Bonk,C.,&Reynolds,T.(1997).Learner-centered Web instruction for higher-order thinking, teamwork and apprenticeship. In B. Khan (Ed.), Web- basedinstruction(pp.167-178).EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Carr, T., Cox, G., Eden, A., & Loopuyt, M. (2002).

An analysis of face to face and online learning conversations in three mixed mode courses. Paper presented at the Multimedia Educational Group (MEG) Colloquium October 2002, Sport Science Institute of South Africa.

Chickering, A., & Gamson, A. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Cobb,P.(1994).Whereisthemind?Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20.

Cooney, D. (1998). Sharing aspects within ASPECTS: Real-time collaboration in the high school English classroom. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learnercentered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 263-287). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Couper, M., Traugott, M., & Lamias, M. (2001, Summer). Web survey design and administration.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(2), 230-253.

December, J. (1993, July 8). Characteristics of oral culture in discourse on the Net. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Penn State Conference on Rhetoric and Composition, University Park, Pennsylvania.

0

Chatting to Learn

Duemer, L., Fontenot, D., Gumfory, K., & Kallus, M. (2002). The use of online synchronous discussion groups to enhance community formation and professional identity development. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2).

Duffy, T., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (1993). Behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism. Comparing critical features. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-70.

Fricker, R., Jr., & Rand, M. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of Internet research surveys: Evidence from the literature. Field Methods, 14(4), 347-367.

Goh, S.-C., & Tobin, K. (1999). Student and teacher perspectives in computer-mediated learning environments in teacher education. Learning Environments Research, 2, 169-190.

Hancock, J., & Dunham, P. (2001). Language use in computer-mediated communication: The role of coordination devices. Discourse Processes, 31(1), 91-110.

Harasim, L., Calvert, T., & Groeneboer, C. (1997). Virtual-U: A Web-based system to support collaborative learning. In B. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 149-158). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Herring,S.(2003).Computer-mediateddiscourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.),

Thehandbookofdiscourseanalysis(pp.612-634). Oxford: Blackwell.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),

Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1017-1044). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.

Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange,discordandknowledgeconstruction.

Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74.

Kanuka, H., & Garrison, D. (2004). Cognitive presence in online learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(2), 1-18.

Kumar, A., Kumar, P., & Basu, S. C. (2002). Student perceptions of virtual education: An exploratory study. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.),

Web-based instructional learning (pp. 132-141). London: IRM Press.

McIsaac,M.,&Gunawardena,C.(1996).Distance education. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 403-437). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

McKlin, T., Harmon, S., Evans, W., & Jones, M. (2002). Cognitive presence in Web-based learning: a content analysis of students’ online discussion. Paper presented at the ITFORUM 2002.

Pawan, P., Paulus, T., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. (2003). Online learning: patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3), 119-140.

Chapter X

What Factors Promote

Sustained Online Discussions

and Collaborative Learning in a

Web-Based Course?

Xinchun Wang

California State University–Fresno, USA

abstRact

Although the pedagogical advantages of online interactive learning are well known, much needs to be done in instructional design of applicable collaborative learning tasks that motivate sustained student participation and interaction. This study investigates the factors that encourage student interaction and collaboration in both process and product oriented computer mediated communication (CMC) tasks in a Web-based course that adopts interactive learning tasks as its core learning activities. The analysis of a post course survey questionnaire collected from three online classes suggest that among others, the structure of the online discussion, group size and group cohesion, strictly enforced deadlines, direct link of interactive learning activities to the assessment, and the differences in process and product driven interactive learning tasks are some of the important factors that influence participation and contribute to sustained online interaction and collaboration.

intRoduction

theoretical framework

Thepedagogicaladvantagesofstudentinteraction in collaborative construction of knowledge are grounded in the social constructivist perspective of learning. From the social constructivist

perspective, all learning is inherently social in nature. Vygotsky’s theory of the Zone of Proximal

Development posits that learners benefit most from social interactions concerning tasks they cannot do alone but can do in collaboration with more knowledgeable or more experienced peers (Kern, 1995). Knowledge is discovered and constructed through negotiation, or collective sense

Copyright © 2008, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

What Factors Promote Sustained Online Discussions and Collaborative Learning

making. Pedagogically sound tasks in an online learning environment should, therefore, reflect social learning and collaborative construction of knowledge.

In designing and implementing online collaborative learning tasks, educators also draw heavily from Bakhtin’s social theories to support their models of social interaction in collaborative construction of meaning in an online learning environment (Duin & Hansen, 1994; Wang & Teles, 1998; Wu, 2003). A speaker gives voice to a thought, an utterance, this utterance, though representing the ideas of an individual, reflects a social environment that is shared. The listener interpretstheutterancesinapurposeful,conscious act, in terms of his or her own concept of the social context, in terms of what the words mean to him or her individually. Therefore, speech and writing are dialogical in that the meaning of an utterance is created by both the speaker/writer and listener/reader through social interaction (Duin & Hansen, 1994). Pedagogically sound online learning tasks should therefore facilitate such online interactive learning for knowledge construction.

interactive learning and online collaboration

From a student’s perspective, online interaction in learning takes place at two different levels: interaction with content and interaction with instructors and between peers (Gao & Lehman, 2003). There is evidence that pedagogically well-designed interactive learning tasks actually increase rather than decrease student access to instructors;increaseinteractionsbetweeninstructors and among students; and increase students involvement of course content as well (Lavooy & Newlin, 2003; Mouza, Kaplan, & Espinet; 2000; Wu, 2003). Interactive learning tasks also promote greater equality of participation (Mouza,

Kaplan & Espinet, 2000), more extensive opinion giving and exchanges (Summer & Hostetler, 2002), empower shy students to participate, and promote more student-centered learning (Kern, 1995; Wang & Teles, 1998)

At the level of interaction with content, students benefit more from producing explanations than receiving explanations. Such proactive learning engages students in a higher level of thinking than the reactive type of learning (Gao

&Lehman, 2003; Wu, 2003). To promote such proactive learning, online course instructors need to integratemoreactivelearning tasks thatrequire more production than reception of explanations. Therefore, tasks that require written explanations should be considered over multiple choice type of reading comprehension in interpreting learning materials. Computer Meditated Communication inbothsynchronousandasynchronousdiscussion forums is inherently supportive of tasks for exchangeofsuchwrittenexplanations.Furthermore, the systems can also archive written explanations postedinonlineforumsandcanbeeasilyaccessed and retrieved for references.

Although CMC supports interaction and collaborative learning, it also has inherent shortcomings. Disadvantages include the time it takes to exchange messages and the increased difficultiesinexpressingideasclearlyinacontext reduced learning environment and the difficulty in coordinating and clarifying ideas (Sumner

&Hostetler, 2002). The increased time it takes to reach consensus and decisions (Kuhl, 2002; Sumner & Hostetler, 2002) and to produce a final product (Macdonald, 2003). Given all these difficulties students need to overcome in order to collaborate effectively in interactive learning environment, online instructors need to address these obstacles with careful instructional design and provide support for collaborative learning with appropriate interactive learning tasks.

What Factors Promote Sustained Online Discussions and Collaborative Learning

Factors That Influence Student online interaction and collaboration

Research has also shown that computer mediated communicative tasks require more active role of students than traditional instruction in the face- to-face environment does (Wang & Teles, 1998). Studentsneedtobewillingtosendaformalwritten question rather than have a casual conversation with peers or with the instructor in order to have their questions answered (Kuhl, 2002). To communicateeffectivelywithpeersandtheinstructor, students need to create the context through written messages, which requires the writing skills to identifytheirproblemsandexpressthemprecisely in order to have the questions answered. Team work and negotiation for meaning are necessary skills in CMC that cannot be assumed. Students need to learn to be familiar with the discourse of the discipline and academic genre for an online synchronous and asynchronous forum (Kuhl, 2002; Macdonald, 2003).

Inadditiontonegotiationskillsonline,previous research has identified a number of other factors thatinfluencestudentparticipationandinteraction inaWeb-basedlearningenvironment.Amongoth- ers, the assessment of collaborative learning tasks plays a crucial role in ensuring student participation (Kear, 2004; Kear & Heap, 1999; Macdonald, 2003). In general, assessed collaborative learning tasks attract student participation at the cost of unassessed tasks. Furthermore, grade for discussion was also positively related to students’ perceived learning (Jiang & Ting, 2000).

The structure of discussion in CMC is found to be another important factor in ensuring the amount of participation and level of interaction andcollaborationamongthepeers.Suchstructure includes the size of the discussion groups, the nature and types of discussion topics (Williams & Pury, 2002), and whether the collaboration emphasizes the process of learning or the end productofsuchcollaboration,orboth(Kear,2004; Kear & Heap, 1999; Macdonald, 2003). Online

collaboration can be either process or product oriented. Forum discussions regarding course contents or related issues are commonly process oriented as the sharing of ideas help learners understand the issues without necessarily leading to afinalproduct.Studentsareassessedindividually based on their participation and quality of their contributions. Alternatively, online interaction and collaboration may lead to a final product such as an essay, a project, or a Web page, and so forth. There can be two assessment elements to such tasks, a common grade for the group for the overall quality of the collaborative product and individual grades for the contribution of each individual to the collaborative endeavor (Kear, 2004; Kear & Heap, 1999; Macdonald, 2003).

Finally, like any other form of learning, learning collaboratively in an online course is also characterized by individual differences. Collaboration as a process of participating to the knowledge communities is not an equal process to all the members of the community (Leinonen, Järvelä & Lipponen, 2003).

To summarize, online negotiation skills, the directlinkbetweencollaborativetasksandassessment, the structure of online discussions such as the nature and types of discussion topics, the size of the group, and the differences between process and product oriented collaborative tasks are some ofthefactorsthatinfluencestudentparticipation, interaction, and collaboration.

It is important to note that some of the above findings are based on experiments that are not a part of an online course (Gao & Lehman, 2003). Others have based their studies on courses that integrate some collaborative tasks in mainly student-instructor/tutor interaction type courses (Kear, 2004; Kear & Heap, 1999; Leinonen, Järvelä, & Lipponen, 2003; Macdonald, 2003; Williams & Pury, 2002). Web-based courses that employ collaborative learning tasks that form the essential course syllabus are less studied. While the advantages of student interaction and collaborative learning in Web-based learning

What Factors Promote Sustained Online Discussions and Collaborative Learning

environment has long been recognized, what remains to be identified are what instructional design of course tasks and activities that promote sustained and consistent student interaction and collaboration for knowledge construction.

Moreover, there is also evidence that online interactive learning and collaboration are not always sustainable and students’ participation in CMC collaborative tasks may wane after the assessed tasks that require the postings are completed (Macdonald, 2003). In a recent survey on college student’s attitudes toward participation in electronic discussions, Williams and Pury (2002, p. 1) found that “contrary to much literature on electronic collaboration suggesting students enjoy online collaboration, our students did not enjoy online discussion regardless of whether the discussion was optional or mandatory.” Much needs to be done to explore factors that promote sustained student interest in online interactive learning and collaboration.

the study

Through a post course survey, this study investigates the factors that promote sustained student participation in computer-mediated discussions as the core interactive learning tasks in a small group setting in an upper division undergraduate course that was offered entirely online. It also examines students’ attitudes toward process and product oriented interactive and collaborative learning. The research questions are:

1.Whatfactorsencouragesustainedparticipation, interaction, and collaboration in asynchronous discussion forums in a Web-based course?

2.What interactive learning tasks are sustainable and what are not?

3.Arethereanydifferencesinstudentattitudes toward process and product oriented online collaborative learning tasks? If so, what are thefactorsthatinfluencestudents’different perspectives toward such tasks?

4.Whatpedagogicalimplicationsdothefindings have?

couRse infoRMation and data collection

course information

The course under study was an upper division general education course in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education delivered entirely on Blackboard in Spring and Fall 2004 at a state university in California. A total of 60 students, 22 in the Spring semester class, and 20 and 18 students in the two Fall semester classes completed the course. All were local students who took the course online because the same course offered face to face conflicted with their schedules. Some students lived over an hour of driving distance from campus (not uncommon in Central California) and chose to take the online course to avoid commute. According to student self-report, all had taken at least one Web-enhanced course and were familiar with the Blackboard interface, although most of these courses used Blackboard for downloading course materials and lecture notes rather than integrating interactive learning activities. About 20% of the students reported they had taken at least one Web-based course. It was not clear how many of them experienced interactive learning online.

collaborative tasks and their assessment

Forum discussions on course readings and related issues formed the core interactive learning activities that were 45% of the course grade. These were process oriented interactive learning tasks for which individual grades were assigned for each student based on their quantity and the quality of postings in the forums. Small groups of 4-6 people were formed at the beginning of the semester for the weekly asynchronous group