A growing trend in post-secondary education is the supplementing of classroom discourse with online discourse. This new discourse is often situated in social networking and course management applications. There are several reasons for the move toward online discourse. Wide availability of new hardware and software has played a role. Even more important is an emerging consensus that our societal, economic, and individual futures depend on our capacity to engage complex issues in a collaborative manner. However, this new technology and the techniques they make possible have introduced new problems. Many instructors are finding it more difficult to monitor, evaluate, and direct class discourse. Social network analysis and content analysis can provide the means to understand the structure of online, digital discourse and the content of digital documents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArbaughJ. (2007). An empirical verification of the Community of Inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 73–85.
2.
AvivR.ErlichZ.RavidG. (2005). Response neighborhoods in online learning networks: A quantitative analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 8(4), 90–99.
3.
AvivR.ErlichZ.RavidG.GevaA. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 1–23.
4.
BereiterC. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
ChimomboM.RoseberryR. L. (1998). The power of discourse: An introduction to discourse analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6.
ContractorN.WassermanS.FaustK. (2006). Testing multi-level, multi-theoretical hypotheses about networks in 21 century organizational forms: An analytic framework and empirical example. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 681–703.
GarrisonD.AndersonT.ArcherW. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105.
11.
GrofmanB. (1978). Judgmental competence of individuals and groups in a dichotomous choice situation: Is a majority of heads better than one?Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 6, 47–60.
12.
GuzdialM.TurnsJ. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 437–469.
13.
HakkarainenK.LipponenL.JärveläS. (2002). Epistemology of inquiry and computer supported collaborative learning. In KoschmannT.HallR.MiyakeN. (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying for ward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
HewittJ. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 31–45.
15.
HinszV.TindaleR.VollrathD. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43–64.
16.
HoadleyC.PeaR. D. (2002). Finding the ties that bind: Tools in support of a knowledge building community. In RennigerK. A.WesleyS. (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HutchinsE. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. In ResnickL. B.LevineJ. M.TeasleyS. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
18.
KarasavvidisI. (2002). Distributed cognition and educational practice. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(1/2), 11–29.
19.
KingP.KitchenerK. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
LiZ. (2009). Asynchronous discourse in a web-assisted mathematics education course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho.
24.
LibbyR.TrotmanK.ZimmerI. (1987). Member variation, recognition of expertise, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 81–87.
25.
LipponenL. (2000). Towards knowledge building: From facts to explanations in primary students' computer mediated discourse. Learning Environments Research, 3, 179–199.
26.
LittlepageG. E.SchmidtG. W.WhislerE. W.FrostA. G. (1995). An input process–output analysis of influence and performance in problem-solving groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 877–889.
27.
LiuL.MadduxC. (2008). Web 2.0 articles: Content analysis and a statistical model to predict recognition of need for new instructional design strategies. Computers in the Schools, 25(3), 314–328.
28.
LobelM.NeubauerM.SwedburgR. (2005). Selected topics from a matched study between a face-to-face section and a real-time online section of a university course. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php./irrodl/article/view/234
29.
LorgeJ.SolomonH. (1955). Two models of group behavior in the solution of Heureka-type problems. Psychometrica, 20, 139–148.
30.
MongeP.ContractorN. (2003). Theories of communication networks. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31.
PeaR. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In SalomonG. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
RogersY. (2005). Distributed cognition and communication. In BrownK. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.
33.
SaL. (2009). Content analysis of unstructured data in the field of mathematics education using text mining. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno.
34.
ScardamaliaM. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In SmithB. (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
35.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (2003). Knowledge building. In GuthrieJ. W. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 1370–1373). New York: Macmillan Reference.
36.
SimonsenL.BanfieldJ. (2006). Fostering mathematical discourse in online asynchronous discussions: An analysis of instructor interventions. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(1), 41–75.
37.
SorkinR. D.HaysC.WestR. (2001). Signal-detection analysis of group decision making. Psychological Review, 108, 183–203.
38.
ThomasD.LiQ.KnottL.LiZ. (2008). The structure of student dialogue in web-assisted mathematics courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(4), 415–431.
39.
van AalstJ. (2006). Rethinking the nature of online work in asynchronous learning networks. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 279–288.
40.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis. Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
WeberR. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
WitteE. (2007). Toward a group facilitation technique for project teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(3), 299–309.
