Content uploaded by Yvonne Bain
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yvonne Bain on Jan 11, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Yvonne Bain
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yvonne Bain on Jan 11, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Learning through online discussion: a framework evidenced in learners’
interactions
Yvonne C. Bain*
School of Education, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
(Received 14 June 2011; final version received 22 June 2011)
Online learning, often supported through online discussion, is not only a popular
means of supporting off-campus learners, but increasingly has a place within
campus-based learning courses. Laurillard and others suggest that there are
assumptions being made about learning through online discussion that have yet to
be fully tested, and therefore there is a need to examine this area further. Tutors and
learners may benefit from having a greater insight and understanding of how
engaging in asynchronous online discussion presents opportunities for learning on
an individual and a collective basis. This research study focused on learners’
engagement with online discussion and their perceptions of how engaging in online
discussion impacts on learning. This paper revisits learning through online
discussion and proposes a framework, which emerges from the analysis of learners’
experiences. A grounded theory approach was used in the collection and analysis of
six learner case studies within a higher education setting, exploring learners’
interactions in online discussion, and their perceptions of learning through online
discussion. Insights into the learners’ interactions were provided by the learners
themselves through semi-structured interviews. The grounded approach to the
analysis of the interviews enabled the learners’ voices to be heard in terms of what
they thought about learning through online discussion. The insight enabled
through the depth of description from the learners and the examination of the
online interactions led to the development of a framework for learning through
online discussion. The framework raises the importance of articulation as a key
process in learning whilst highlighting the opportunities for collaborative informed
thinking by engaging with the ideas of others. The focus given to the learning
process through the framework will be of interest to tutors and learners who use
online asynchronous discussion environments for learning.
Keywords: computer mediated communication; learners’ experiences;
asynchronous discussion; grounded theory.
Introduction
The potential of computer mediated communication (CMC) as a means of enabling
interactions and sharing of ideas between learners, wherever and whenever the
learner is situated, has been extolled for more than two decades now.
‘‘CMC has the potential to provide a means for the weaving together of ideas and
information from many people’s minds, regardless of when and from where they contribute.’’
Kaye (1989, 3)
*Corresponding author. Email: y.c.bain@abdn.ac.uk
ALT-C 2011 Conference Proceedings 0136
ISBN 978-91-977071-4-5 (print), 978-91-977071-5-2 (online)
2011 Association for Learning Technology. #Y.C. Bain. This is an Open Access article distributed under the 29
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 UK: England & Wales licence (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/) permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited. DOI: 10.3402/rlt.v19s1/7779
However, these benefits are not always realised by learners and there is much still to
know about learning within an online discussion environment, as has been identified
in other studies such as Downing et al. (2007) who recognise the need to know more
about effectively supporting and sustaining learner engagement in online environ-
ments. Peters and Hewitt (2010) note that there is a need to know more about the
online behaviours of students in asynchronous discussion and a need to focus more
on learning outcomes. The need to know more about learning, and the experiences of
learning, in online discussion is highlighted within this paper.
The paper reports on a qualitative, phenomenographic study which focuses on six
learners’ experiences in a Higher Education setting in Scotland, within two different
subject disciplines. A grounded approach to analysing the learners’ interactions and
their perceptions of their experiences, offers an insight of learning in these discipline
settings. The findings from the study led to the development of a framework for
learning through online discussion. The proposed framework draws together the
experiences of the learners with insight available within research literature about
learning through the processes of writing, as may be applicable to posting messages
in an online discussion environment. Implications for tutors and learners in
asynchronous discussion are discussed.
Background
Mayes and de Freitas (2007), and more recently Laurillard (2009), expressed the view
that there is nothing new to know about learning, with the implication that what is
known about traditional modes of learning will transfer to learning in online
environments. Despite the increasing availability of guidelines relating to tutoring
online (e.g. Salmon 2000; Laurillard 2002; Garrison and Anderson 2003), the
guidance offered does not seem to transfer into consistent approaches to learning
online. McConnell (2006) highlights that not all learners are enthusiastic about
engaging in online learning. Other studies raise other issues in relation to the use of
learning through online discussion, such as some learners not having the skills
required to work in collaborative social constructivist environments (Murphy et al.
2005). Sharpe et al. (2006) and Ellis et al. (2007) caution that some students do not
know how to engage effectively in face-to-face discussion and that this may impact
on them being able to benefit from the online discussion. Kim and Bateman (2010)
likewise consider that there is a need for students to be helped in developing skills to
engage with discussion. Therefore, tutors need to know more about supporting
online discussion, and there is a need to understand more about learners’ engagement
with online discussion, as suggested by Ravenscroft (2005) and Goodyear and Ellis
(2008).
Engaging in asynchronous discussion potentially benefits learners by enabling
them to take time to reflect on messages previously posted before making their own
contribution. Browne (2003) and Macdonald (2006) consider that the time delay
affords thinking time. Others such as McConnell (2000) and Andrews and
Haythornthwaite (2007) highlight that the permanent nature of the messages posted
provides opportunities to reflect on the messages as and when required by the
learners. However, the extent to which message posts are actually used for reflection
is questioned by Ellis et al. (2007). The potential benefits of learning through online
discussion are well documented but not always evidenced in practice, and current
research suggests that there is a need to know more about how learners actually
Y.C. Bain
30
spend their time online. Gilbert et al. (2007) and So (2009) call for further research
about student interaction in online environments.
However, further consideration needs to be given to the nature of online
discussion in that it is neither like oral discussion nor individual writing. Andrews
and Haythornthwaite (2007) draw attention to the differences in modes of
communicating in an asynchronous discussion environment, citing Erickson (1999)
who considered online discussion to be sometimes like formal published text and at
other times to be like informal chat. The text-based medium of online discussion
creates opportunities for enhancing learning by engaging in writing as a process of
learning. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) consider that the act of composing helps to
shape and develop understanding whilst writing, if the writing is consciously
reviewed whilst composing. Ritchhart and Perkins (2008) further consider that the
process of articulation or externalising thinking either by writing or by talking helps
deepen thinking. In asynchronous discussion, there is an opportunity to use writing
to articulate thoughts and therefore externalise thinking for others, and to respond to
the thinking that is articulated by others. Mercer (2000) suggests that group
interactions, which are as a result of paying attention to others’ contributions,
create opportunities for collective, shared thinking in which the individual thinking
of a learner may be shaped by engaging with the thinking of others.
Therefore, there is recognition within the literature on the process of writing to
shape thinking, and for individual thinking to be informed by collective thinking.
However, the possible lack of skills to engage in discussion or the lack of attention to
the messages posted by others means that the opportunities are not fully understood
or recognised by learners.
The learners’ contexts
The study reported in this paper aimed to explore how learners engage with online
discussion. In particular, the study sought to examine the approaches used by the
learners and their perceptions of learning with others within an asynchronous
discussion environment. The learners were studying at an undergraduate level within
a higher education institution in Scotland and from two different subject disciplines.
A total of six learner case studies informed the research. Three learners were studying
a Scottish Degree level 3 (third year) History of Art campus-based blended learning
course; two learners were studying a Scottish Degree level 2 (second year) online
Theology course and one learner was studying a first year online Theology course.
All six learners were female with a range of prior educational experience.
The History of Art courses were taught on campus but had an online discussion
component in the form of a virtual seminar which contributed 20% of the
total course assessment. During the online component of the course, the usual class
contact time was suspended for a period of two weeks. Learners engaged in
discussion about a given virtual seminar topic in groups of four learners. Each learner
in the group had a different topic for which they had to write a 2000-word essay prior
to the start of the virtual seminar. The essay had to be uploaded in the form of a web
page making it publicly available to the others in the group. Learners were explicitly
told to engage in the online discussion as an interview format, by asking a minimum
of three questions about their peers’ essays and responding to questions asked of
them within 72 hours. Within these guidelines, they could engage in the discussion
wherever and whenever was suitable to them. The learners undertook this course as
ALT-C 2011 Conference Proceedings
31
part of an honours degree in History of Art. As this was the third year of study in this
discipline setting, they were used to engaging in oral discussion within campus-based
seminars, and writing about History of Art, but this was the first time that the
learning experience required engagement in asynchronous online discussion.
The Theology courses were totally online, and had no campus-based learning
component. The course learning materials were available within the online environ-
ment. There were six different topics in which the learners were expected to engage in
discussion for a period of two weeks per topic. In the first week the asynchronous
discussion of the topic was within a small group. In the second week the groups then
contributed to a whole class asynchronous discussion. Each learner was at a
geographical distance from the campus and was studying the course as part of
a Certificate, Diploma or Degree in Theology. Each of Theology case studies was a
mature learner and had used online learning and asynchronous discussion in a
previous course, with the same tutor and with the same organisation of the learning
environment and the learning activities. Engagement in the online discussion for the
Theology courses was not compulsory. However, participation in the online
discussion was clearly expected. The course study guide highlighted that the learners
were to engage with each other and to contribute to the online discussion, and noted
that each learner would take on the task of summarising the group discussion at the
end of a week.
The case studies
Case studies were selected from learners who had agreed to have their interactions
tracked and had been interviewed about their perceptions of learning through online
discussion. Preference was given to learners who were in the same online discussion
group. The three History of Art case studies were drawn from a class of 24 learners.
In the Theology settings, the three case studies were self-selecting as they were the
only volunteers from two classes (of a total of 15 learners).
The researcher was an observer of the online interactions and had no tutoring
role in either of the discipline settings. The setting for the study was naturalistic
(Gubrium and Holstein 1997) as the data were gathered from the online discussion
areas, which were part of the intended course learning processes for the learners.
There has not been any attempt to try to impose a particular structure or approach to
the online discussions to satisfy a research requirement.
Methodology
The research study aimed to examine the learners’ perspective of their experience of
online discussion and how they engage with online discussion. This required a
qualitative research methodology which, in this study, takes a phenomenological and
interpretative approach to the analysis of semi-structured interviews with the
learners. In order to do so, the study adopted a grounded approach to deriving a
theory from the data (Glaser and Strauss 1967). A case study approach (Yin 2003;
Stake 2006) was used to focus on the individual learners, to gather in-depth data
about the learner and her experiences of engaging in online discussion.
Data were gathered from one institution, two different discipline contexts each
with a different mode of delivery of learning, and from three different learners in each
of the discipline contexts. Participants were invited to take part in the research before
Y.C. Bain
32
the online discussion activity took place. For each case study, tracking tools available
within the WebCT online environment were used to gather data about the learner’s
online interactions; discussion posts were captured to explore the nature of the
contributions made; and a semi-structured interview was used to gain insight to
the learner’s perceptions of her engagement in, and with, asynchronous discussion.
The interviews took place after the discussion activity was completed and made use
of the tracking detail to prompt recall of activity and discussion of the online
interactions. Visual timelines of interactions were manually created (see Figures 1 and
2). Gibbs et al. (2006) have created a tool for online discussion which will generate
visual timelines, but this was not used in this study.
The grounded approach to analysing the interviews highlighted themes within
students’ comments in relation to the need to articulate clearly for others; engaging
with the ideas of others; temporal aspects of using the time delay to research and
prepare responses; and the impact of assessment for example. An iterative process
was involved in creating the framework by examining the interview statements,
exploring the interactions that took place, making connections between students’
perceptions and their online behaviours, and reconsidering what could be understood
about the learning processes from the research literature.
Learners’ interactions
The tracking data revealed differences in how learners engaged with each other in the
online discussion environment. A visual timeline was created to show the pattern of
interactions. For example, in the History of Art contexts, two of the case studies,
Camille and Rosalba (pseudonyms) regularly logged on to the learning environment,
but had different time-scales for engaging with others.
Camille was shown to respond regularly within 24 hours of questions being asked
of her, as shown in Figure 1, which shows the date and time of posting of a particular
message (number), and the length of response given (words) for two of the discussion
threads.
Rosalba chose to delay her responses as shown in Figure 2. This resulted in a
more restricted engagement with her peers as there was very little time left for peers
to ask anything further about the responses given by Rosalba. The pattern of
interaction in Rosalba’s discussion forum shows a pattern of questionanswer only
with no follow-up, whereas Camille’s interactions show a more extended question
answer engagement with the interactions in the third thread (Figure 1, Thread 3:
Social Viewpoint). Rosalba’s experience supports the views expressed by Jeong and
Frazier (2008) and Dringus and Ellis (2010) that late posts are less likely to receive a
response, as can be seen in Figure 1 when the late post by Rosalba does not receive a
response from Camille.
Further insight was gained from the semi-structured interviews with the learners,
which revealed for instance that Rosalba was unaware of restricting her opportunities
for engaging with others. Her perception was that the time delay allowed for further
research on a topic and that ‘‘you’re more likely to sort of interact and have a longer
sort of discussion about something’’. She also made reference to the convenience of
being able to engage in discussion as anytime-anywhere learning (Hiltz and Goldman
2005), commenting that:
ALT-C 2011 Conference Proceedings
33
Thread 3:
Social Viewpoint
14th
November
15th
November
16th
November
17th
November
18th
November
19th
November
20th
November
491 Rose
Posts question
14/11 17:47
493 Camille
Replies
152 words
15/11 10:21
494 Tutor
Posts further
question
16/11 12:24
496 Camille
Responds
166 words
16/11 22:10
497 Lilla
Asks question
17/11/08 12:04
498 Camille
Responds
243 words
17/11 14:54
499 Rose
Asks further question
17/11 15:45
503 Camille
Responds
174 words
17/11 18:00
508 Rosalba
Asks question on
different aspect
20/11 23:05
Figure 1. Visual timeline of Camille’s interactions.
Y.C. Bain
34
They are more likely to get involved because you don’t have to turn up anywhere really I
mean you could just sit in bed and do it. ... if you’ve got something else to do you can go
and do it and it’s learning in your time. [Rosalba]
Rosalba’s perceptions of engaging with others did not necessarily match up with the
reality of her engagement with others.
The History of Art online discussions formed part of the course assessment and
that may have impacted on how the learners interacted with each other. Rosalba and
other learners commented on engaging with others because it was assessed and they
wished to get a good mark. Marguerite for example noted that:
people want to get the best marks they can and I think that probably shapes how people
do things. [Marguerite]
However, the assessment was not necessarily enough of a motivator for all
participants, as in one discussion forum it was observed that three learners did not
engage with the fourth member of the group.
In the Theology course settings, there was no compulsion to participate and no
assessment of the online contributions. In the Theology settings, there were very low
levels of interaction between learners. The lack of engagement with others meant that
a sense of frustration developed as learners realised that this could have impacted on
their learning. For example, in the level 2 course, Martha noted her frustration at the
lack of interaction by others:
I found it very frustrating.. the lack of input from people, so whenever there was a
contribution, I would have replied to it. [later in the interview] I think I could have got
more out of it if, other people had contributed a bit more... I was a bit frustrated that
folk didn’t take part. [Martha, level 2 Theology]
Ruth for instance, relied on interacting with the tutor mainly. In her interview she too
commented on the lack of presence of other learners:
I felt sometimes, you were putting your answers and you were almost, well, forgetting
about the others that were there. [Ruth, level 1 Theology]
This was clearly not the level of interactive discussion that the tutor had planned for
the course.
The lack of response, or delayed response, was experienced in both disciplines and
impacted on learners in different ways. In the Theology course, Martha commented
Valued Art Form
thread initiated by
Camille
Corot and
classicism thread
initiated by Rose
13th
November
14th
November
20th
November
21st
November
455 Camille
Asks question
13/11 13:49
456 Rosalba
replies
674 words
21/11 10:46
457 Rose
asks question
14/11 14:48
458 Rosalba
replies
251 words
20/11 20:30
Figure 2. Visual timeline of Rosalba’s threads 2 and 3.
ALT-C 2011 Conference Proceedings
35
on realising that the lack of engagement may have impacted on what she could have
learned. In the History of Art course, Camille commented on losing her thought
processes when peers did not respond in a timely manner:
There was one person in my group who I answered I asked two questions and it was
about four of five days before they bothered to reply which was a bit annoying because
by the time when I went back to read their thing I’d forgotten what my first thought was.
[Camille, History of Art]
Her comment is a reference to the interactions shown in Figure 2, in which
Rosalba takes several days to respond.
The interactions of learners were not necessarily matched with the learners’
perceptions of how they engaged with other. The negative impact that the lack of
engagement can have suggests that for small group discussion there is a need to
ensure that all are actively involved. Studies, such as Romiszowski and Mason (2004)
and Beaudoin (2005), highlight that lurkers (those who read messages but do not
post) are engaged in learning through reading the contributions of others. However,
the potential impact of their lack of overt engagement should be noted.
Insights to learning
In the interviews the learners commented on broadening and deepening their
understanding of a topic within their subject discipline. For instance, Camille
commented that her engagement with others in the discussion area and with reading
other people’s essays helped her broaden her thinking about her own essay.
Marguerite spoke of developing a more critical approach to examining someone’s
work as a result of reading her peers’ contributions. Marguerite considered that her
engagement in the discussion, and the questioning of her peers, and articulating her
thoughts for others helped clarify her understanding about a topic. Marguerite (in
History of Art) and Martha (in Theology) each raised the aspect of writing for an
audience, being aware that their responses would have to be constructed carefully to
try and get an argument across without misinterpretation by others which helped
articulate their thinking.
Whilst there are contradictions in the literature about whether the participants of
asynchronous discussion actually use the time delay for reflection, there was evidence
of reflection in these case studies. Reflection was implied by Camille, who made
reference to having time to collect her thoughts; whilst Ruth (in Theology) spoke of
using time to reflect on reading. The learners benefited in some way by engaging in
reflection, by taking time to shape and develop their messages and in articulating
their thoughts for others to understand.
Contribution
From the learners’ experiences, it seems that there is a need for learners to
understand more about the processes involved in learning through online discussion
so that they can maximise the opportunities that are presented. There are
opportunities to develop learning through online discussion, but these are not fully
recognised or acted upon by learners. Drawing from the learners’ experiences and the
literature, a framework for learning through online discussion emerges.
Y.C. Bain
36
The learners provided evidence of making use of the asynchronous nature to
reflect and to think some more about the topic of discussion in order to further shape
their understanding of the topic. These activities are covert activities, not evident to
others unless some tangible output of this is shared with others. Figure 3 represents
the hidden (covert) processes involved.
As identified by the learners, there are benefits to be gained from articulating
their thinking for others to read. The act of writing can help develop understanding
of the subject itself (Bereiter and Scardamalia 1987; Mercer 2000). Figure 4
highlights the role of articulture in learning.
When a learner chooses to post a message, she/he may choose to make overt
connections with the thinking of others by making a response which has connections
with the previous messages posted and adding to the thread of discussion (e.g. as
happened in Camille’s interactions in Figure 1). Alternatively, a message may be
posted that has no connections with other messages, and is posted as an isolated,
unconnected message Figure 5 represents the overt articulation which occurs when
posting a message.
Figure 6 highlights the potential benefits to an individual learner from being
informed by others through reading and reflecting on the messages posted by others,
from composing a written response and articulating thinking to make thinking
‘visible’ to others (Ritchhart and Perkins 2008).
This is not a one-way process, however, and just as an individual can be informed
by the contributions of the group, the individual can inform the thinking of others in
the group, potentially building up collective thinking. The individual’s learning may
be prompted by, and contribute to, the thinking of others if she/he chooses to read
and take account of the messages posted by others. Thus, there are reciprocal
learning opportunities for an individual and for the others in the group. Figure 7
summarises this reciprocity of learning opportunities created when learners engage in
learning through online discussion. The top half of the figure represents the
opportunities for an individual learner whilst the bottom half represents the
opportunities of others that arise as a result of their articulation of thinking and
their reflections of the contributions made by other individuals. Thus all learners
have the opportunities to benefit from the thinking of others, and from articulating
their own thinking.
Articulation is at the heart of making thinking known to others. Articulation of
thoughts may be connected with the thinking of others (overt collective informed
Reflecting on the
thinking of others
Reflecting on own
perspective /
understanding
(1) COVERT INDIVIDUAL
THINKING
Individual learner responds to some
stimulus - such as a set learning
activity. This may involve
researching, rehearsing or
reshaping thoughts.
Requires thinking time.
Thinking is individual and covert.
(2) COVERT COLLECTIVE
INFORMED THINKING
Individual reads messages of others.
Connections are made with others'
thinking which can reaffirm, negate or
reshape thinking.
Thinking is individual and covert but is
influenced or informed by others.
Figure 3. Covert processes.
ALT-C 2011 Conference Proceedings
37
thinking) when the message posted draws from, or is openly influenced by, the
messages of others. Articulation may be unconnected to others (overt individual
thinking) exemplifying individual thinking shown as isolated posts. To move from
individual thinking to collective, shared thinking requires the individual learners to
read, reflect and make connections which are then articulated in messages posted.
The overt articulation of thinking creates possibilities for individual thinking to
develop into new, collective and shared thinking.
Mercer (2000, 129) cautions that: ‘‘CMC will only be as good for collective thinking
as its users make it’’. If learners are not fully aware of the opportunities for
developing learning through CMC then the result may be a lack of overt engagement
which impacts on the individual and other learners in the group.
Reflecting on the
thinking of others
Reflecting on own
perspective /
understanding
Composing
Reflecting whilst
writing
(1) COVERT INDIVIDUAL THINKING
Individual learner responds to some
stimulus - such as a set learning activity.
This may involve researching, rehearsing
or reshaping thoughts.
Requires thinking time.
Thinking is individual and covert.
(2) COVERT COLLECTIVE INFORMED
THINKING
Individual reads messages of others.
Connections are made with others'
thinking which can reaffirm, negate or
reshape thinking.
Thinking is individual and covert but is
influenced or informed by others.
(3) ARTICULATION
Individual learner articulates thinking by composing a
message - moving from the internal process of thinking to
externalising thinking through writing. This may be edited
and reviewed any number of times before being finalised.
Figure 4. Articulation as a process of learning.
unconnected post connected post
(3) ARTICULATION
Individual learner articulates thinking by
composing a message - moving from the
internal process of thinking to externalising
thinking through writing. This may be
edited and reviewed any number of times
before being finalised.
OI (4) OVERT INDIVIDUAL THINKING
Individual learner posts a message, making
thinking visible but unconnected to other posts.
Covert thinking becomes overt and potentially
contributes to collective thinking.
Messages posted are not part of, or relevant to,
a threaded discussion
OC
(4) OVERT COLLECTIVE THINKING
Individual learner posts a message, which
builds on or connects with other posts -
making thinking visible and contributes to
shared understanding. Individual covert
thinking becomes overt and collective.
Thread of discussion build up.
Figure 5. Overt articulation.
Y.C. Bain
38
This study is limited in that none of the case studies focused on a male participant
and none of the case studies focused on a non-contributor to online discussion.
Further, it may be that the learners’ interactions have been influenced by the
non-participating presence of the researcher, although there was no evidence to
suggest that this was so. The lack of inclusion of learners who chose not to contribute
to the online discussion does not invalidate the analysis of the case studies, but rather
highlights that this is an aspect that would be worth following up in further studies. It
may be particularly helpful to explore the relevance of the framework for learning
through discussion for non-contributors and to gain insight into their reasons for not
contributing to online discussion.
Conclusion
The case studies provide an insight into learners’ approaches to online discussion,
the strategies that they use, their reactions to engaging with others and their
perceptions of learning through discussion that is not readily available in other
research studies.
The framework for learning through online discussion which emerged from the
reconsideration of the processes, as identified by the learners and related to in the
literature, highlights the importance of articulation as part of the learning process
and the importance of building on the contributions of others. In the two discipline
settings within this study, the tutor had designed activities specifically intended to
engage learners in online discussion, but in both settings there were limitations to
how learners chose to engage in this. Tutors need to be explicit about the rationale for
including online discussion as part of the learning experiences, not just in terms of
noting expectations of frequency of posting or desired response times, but in terms of
Reflecting on the
thinking of others
Reflecting on own
perspective
unconnected
post
connected
post
Composing
Reflecting
(1) COVERT INDIVIDUAL
THINKING
Individual learner responds
to some stimulus.
(2) COVERT
COLLECTIVE INFORMED
THINKING
Individual reads others'
messages.
(3) ARTICULATION
of own thoughts
OI (4) OVERT INDIVIDUAL
THINKING
Individual posts an unconnected
message.
OC (4) OVERT COLLECTIVE
THINKING
Individual posts a connected,
threaded message.
Figure 6. Individual learning opportunities created through online discussion.
ALT-C 2011 Conference Proceedings
39
what is meant by discussion and how discussion is expected to develop as the learning
activity progresses. Tutors should explain to learners why online discussion in the
form of written contributions may be helpful in terms of developing thinking and
moving from an individual perspective to a collective informed perspective or shared
perspective.
The proposed framework for learning through online discussion provides an
alternative perspective to the Conversational Framework of Laurillard (2002), by
focusing on the learner engagement rather than the tutoring role, and by raising the
essential role of articulation in learning through online discussion, without which
thinking cannot be shared and feedback (which is a key aspect of Laurillard’s
framework) cannot be provided.
Further development of the framework might provide a means of using the
framework for learners’ self-analysis or tutor-analysis of engagement with the
learning opportunities. It is possible for the framework to be used as the basis of
evaluative questions which encourage learner and/or tutor reflection on the covert
processes of engaging with discussion, the overt processes of engaging in discussion,
and the manner of articulation. It may be possible for further research to share the
unconnected post
connected post
Reflecting on the
thinking of others
Reflecting on own
perspective
Composing
Reflecting
Reflecting on the
thinking of others
Reflecting on own
perspective
unconnected connected
Composing
Reflecting
(4b) Other's message
adds to discussion thread
(3a) ARTICULATION
Other (learner or tutor)
(4a) OVERT INDIVIDUAL
THINKING OF OTHER
Unconnected, isolated
message
(1a) OTHER COVERT
THINKING
Another individual considers
response.
(2a) OTHER INFORMED by
COLLECTIVE THINKING
'Other' reads groups' messages.
(1) COVERT INDIVIDUAL
THINKING
Individual learner responds
to some stimulus.
(2) COVERT
COLLECTIVE INFORMED
THINKING
Individual reads others'
messages.
(3) ARTICULATION
OI (4) OVERT INDIVIDUAL
THINKING
Individual posts an unconnected
message.
OC (4) OVERT COLLECTIVE
THINKING
Individual posts a connected,
threaded message.
Individual
Others
Individual
Others
Figure 7. A framework for learning through online discussion.
Y.C. Bain
40
framework with the learners and tutors, and to then use that as a basis for examining
the learning experiences.
Whether having an understanding of learning through online discussion
expressed in this way is helpful for tutors and/or learners in terms of supporting
and developing their use of online discussion remains for further research.
References
Andrews, R., and C. Haythornthwaite. 2007. Introduction to e-learning research. In The sage
handbook of e-learning research, ed. R. Andrews and C. Haythornthwaite, 152. London:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Beaudoin, M. 2005. Reflections on seeking the ‘invisible’ online learner. AECT 2005. http://
www.Learndev.Org/Dl/Ibstpi-Aect2005-Beaudoin.Pdf (accessed September 17, 2010).
Bereiter, C., and M. Scardamalia. 1987. The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Browne, E. 2003. Conversations in cyberspace: A study of online learning. Open Learning 18,
no. 3: 24559.
Downing, K.J., T.-F. Lam, T. Kwong, W.-K. Downing, and S.-W. Chan. 2007. Creating
interaction in Online learning: A case study. Alt-J 15, no. 3: 20115.
Dringus, L.P., and T.J. Ellis. 2010. Temporal transitions in participation flow in an
asynchronous discussion forum. Computers & Education 54: 3409.
Ellis, A.R., P. Goodyear, A. O’hara, and M. Prosser. 2007. The university student experience of
face-to-face and online discussions: coherence, reflection and meaning. Alt-J-Association
for Learning Technology Journal 15, no. 1: 8397.
Erickson, T. 1999. Persistent conversation: An introduction. Journal of Computer Mediated
Communication 4, no. 4 JCMC http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/ericksonintro.html
(accessed September 17, 2010).
Garrison, D.R., and T. Anderson. 2003. E-learning in the 21st century a framework for research
and practice. Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer.
Gibbs, W.J., V. Olexa, and R.S. Bernas. 2006. A visualization tool for managing and studying
online communications. Educational Technology & Society 9, no. 3: 23243.
Gilbert, J., S. Morton, and J. Rowley. 2007. E-learning: The student experience. British Journal
of Educational Technology 38, no. 4: 56073.
Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory strategies for qualitative
research (Observations). London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Goodyear, P., and R.A. Ellis. 2008. University students’ approaches to learning: Rethinking
the place of technology. Distance Education 29, no. 2: 14152.
Gubrium, J., and J. Holstein. 1997. The new language of qualitative method. NY: Oxford
University Press.
Hiltz, S.R., and R. Goldman. 2005. What are asynchronous learning networks? In Learning
together online research on asynchronous learning networks, ed. S.R. Hiltz and R. Goldman,
318. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jeong, A., and S. Frazier. 2008. How day of posting affects level of critical discourse in
asynchronous discussions and computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British
Journal of Educational Technology 39, no. 5: 87587.
Kaye, A. 1989. Computer-mediated communication and distance education. In Mindweave:
Communication, computers and distance education, ed. R. Mason and A. Kaye, 121.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kim, H.K., and B. Bateman. 2010. Student participation patterns in online discussion.
Incorporating constructivist discussion into online courses. International Journal on
E-Learning 9, no. 1: 7998.
Laurillard, D. 2002. Rethinking university teaching a conversational framework for the effective
use of learning technologies, 2nd ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledgefalmer.
Laurillard, D. 2009. The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. Computer
Supportive Collaborative Learning 4: 520.
ALT-C 2011 Conference Proceedings
41
Macdonald, J. 2006. Blended learning and online tutoring. Aldershot: Gower Publishing
Limited.
Mayes, T., and S. De Freitas. 2007. Learning and e-learning: The role of theory. In Rethinking
pedagogy for a digital age designing and delivering e-learning, ed. H. Beetham and
R. Sharpe, 1325. Oxon: Routledge.
McConnell, D. 2000. Implementing computer supported cooperative learning, 2nd ed. London:
Kogan Page.
McConnell, D. 2006. E-learning groups and communities. Maidenhead: The Society for
Research in to Higher Education & Open University Press.
Mercer, N. 2000. Words and minds how we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
Murphy, K., S. Mahoney, C.-Y. Chen, N. Mendoza-Diaz, and X. Yang. 2005. A constructivist
model of mentoring, coaching, and facilitating online discussion. Distance Education 26,
no. 3: 34166.
Peters, V.L., and J. Hewitt. 2010. An investigation of student practices in asynchronous
computer conferencing courses. Computers & Education 54: 95161.
Ravenscroft, A. 2005. Towards highly communicative e-learning communities. In Education in
cyberspace, ed. R. Land and S. Bayne, 13045. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledgefalmer.
Ritchhart, R. and D. Perkins. 2008. Making thinking visible. http://www.Pz.Harvard.
Edu/Vt/Visiblethinking_Html_Files/06_Additionalresources/Makingthinkingvisibleel.Pdf
(accessed July 27, 2010).
Romiszowski, A., and R. Mason. 2004. Computer-mediated communication. In Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology. 2nd ed., ed. D. Jonassen, 397431.
Association for educational communications and technology: http://www.Aect.Org/
Edtech/15.Pdf (accessed August 9, 2010).
Salmon, G. 2000. E-moderating the key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page
Limited.
Sharpe, R., G. Benfield, G. Roberts, and R. Francis. 2006. The undergraduate experience of
blended e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice. The Higher Education Academy.
http://www.Heacademy.Ac.Uk/Resources/Detail/Ourwork/Teachingandresearch/Under
graduate_Experience (accessed July 09, 2010).
So, H. 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, no. 2: 14360.
Stake, R.E. 2006. Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
Yin, R.K. 2003. Case study research design and methods vol. 5, 3rd ed. Applied social research
methods’’. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Y.C. Bain
42
