Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) is used in different contexts such as business, non-profit organizations, and education and uses different tools such as computer conferencing, e-mail, and groupware. However, it is apparent that the field of CMC lacks established methodologies to analyze the phenomena. This article introduces the use of Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) as a methodology to visualize the data in CMC. FCA is based on a mathematical lattice theory and offers visual maps (graphs) with conceptual hierarchies. Combined with content analysis, FCA is proposed to be a potential method for the analysis of CMC. In this study, three categories (social, cognitive, and metacognitive) from Henri's (1992) model for CMC content analysis were applied to FCA after a previous study used a content-analysis method based on Henri's model to convert the data from a computer conference. The purpose of this article is to provide an example of the application of FCA to CMC and to argue for its potential use for analyzing on-line discourse. Although this article specifically addresses issues related to analyzing data in CMC for education, the methodology is applicable to the analysis of CMC for different purposes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbeyB. (2000). Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based education. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
2.
AhernT. C.PeckK., & LaycockM. (1992). The effects of teacher discourse in computer-mediated discussion. Educational Computing Research, 8(3), 291–309.
3.
BeattyB.BonkC. J., & HaraN. (2001, August). Online interaction: Just how smart are starter-wrapper discussions in the Smart Web? Paper presented at Distance Teaching and Learning 2001, Madison, Wisconsin.
4.
BloomB. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook of cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
5.
BonkC. J., & KingK. S., (Eds.) (1988). Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
ColombG. G., & SimutisJ. A. (1996). Visible conversation and academic inquiry: CMC in a culturally diverse classroom. In HerringS. C. (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 203–222). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins North America.
FeenbergA. (1987). Computer conferencing and the humanities. Instructional Science, 16(2), 169–186.
9.
FreemanL. C., & WhiteD. R. (1993). Using Galois lattices to represent network data. In MarsdenP. V. (Ed.), Sociological methodology (Vol. 23, pp. 127–146). The American Sociological Association.
GroebenN., & RustemeyerR. (1994). On the integration of quantitative and qualitative methodological paradigms. In BorgI. & MohlerP. P. (Eds.), Trends and perspectives in empirical social research (pp. 308–325). Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
12.
HaraN.BonkC. J., & AngeliC. (2000). Content analysis of an on-line discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152.
13.
HaraN., & KlingR. (2000). Student distress in a Web-based distance education course. Information, Communication & Society, 3(4), 557–579. [Online]. Available: http://www.slis.indiana.edu/CSI/wp00-01.html
14.
HarasimL. M. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(2), 117–135.
15.
HarasimL. M. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In HarasimL. M. (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 39–64). New York: Praeger.
16.
HarasimL. M. (1993). Networld: Networks as social space. In HarasimL. M. (Ed.), Global networks: Computers and international communication (pp. 15–34). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
HenriF. (1992). Computer conferencing and Content Analysis. In KayeA. R. (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 115–136). New York: Springer.
18.
Howell-RichardsonC., & MellarH. (1996). A methodology for the analysis of patterns of participation within computer mediated communication courses. Instructional Science, 24, 47–69.
19.
KiesJ. K.WilligesR. C., & RossonM. B. (1998). Coordinating computer-supported cooperative work: A review of research issues and strategies. Journal of The American Society for Information Science, 49(9), 776–791.
20.
KuehnS. A. (1994). Computer-mediated communication in instructional settings: A research agenda. Communication Education, 43, 171–183.
21.
LoaderB. D., & DuttonW. H., (Eds.) (2000). Information, Communication & Society, 3(4).
22.
LukschP.SkorskyM., & WilleR. (1986). On drawing concept lattices with a computer. In GaulW. & SchaderM. (Eds.), Classification as a tool of research (pp. 269–274). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.
23.
MasonR., & KayeT. (1990). Toward anew paradigm for distance education. In HarasimL. M. (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 15–38). New York: Praeger.
24.
MowrerD. E. (1996). A content analysis of student/instructor communication via computer conferencing. Higher Education, 32, 217–241.
25.
NewmanD. R.JohnsonC.WebbB., & CochraneC. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in Computer Supported Co-operative Learning. Journal of The American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 484–495.
PrissU. (1998b). Relational concept analysis: Semantic structures in dictionaries and lexical databases. Shaker Verlag: Aachen.
28.
RomiszowskiA., & MasonR. (1996). Computer-mediated communication. In JohnassenD. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 438–456). New York: Macmillan.
29.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1999). Looking toward the 21st century: Challenges of educational theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 4–14.
30.
SchweizerT. (1997). Embeddedness of ethnographic cases. Current Anthropology, 38(5), 739–759.
31.
StephensonK. (1995). The formation and incorporation of virtual entrepreneurial groups. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 19(3), 35–53.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
WeedmanJ. (1999). Conversation and community: The potential of electronic conferences for creating intellectual proximity in distributed learning environments. Journal of The American Society for Information Science, 50(10), 907–928.
35.
WilleR. (1982). Restructuring lattice theory: An approach based on hierarchies of concepts. In RivalI. (Ed.), Ordered sets (pp. 445–470). Dordrecht-Boston: Reidel.
36.
WolffK. E. (1994). A first course in Formal Concept Analysis: How to understand line diagrams. In FaulbaumF. (Ed.), SoftStat'93, Advances in statistical software (Vol. 4, pp. 429–438). Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
37.
YatesJ.OrlikowskiW. J., & OkamuraK. (1999). Explicit and implicit structuring of genres: Electronic communication in a Japanese R&D organization. Organization Science, 10(1), 83–103.
