Abstract
THERE IS INCREASING INTEREST in creating frameworks for online discussions to improve learning outcomes in higher education environments. Many of these frameworks rely on and promote argumentation-based “challenge” models as the primary mode of discourse. This study tested one existing framework, created by Gunawardena, Lowe, and Anderson (1997), with four small groups in an online higher education environment. Asynchronous discussion transcripts of the four groups as they completed goal-oriented tasks were analyzed for both what the groups talked about and how they created new knowledge together. Using computer-mediated discourse analysis techniques, the Gunawardena et al. (1997) categories were operationalized into functional moves to capture the knowledge construction process. Findings show that rather than a challenge model of argumentation discourse, participants engaged in a relationship-oriented discourse of connection. Educators should be aware of both models of discourse, challenge and connect, because emphasizing only argumentation before trust has been developed among members of the group could result in unproductive conflict.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Austin, J.L. (1962.)How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Barros, B., & Verdejo, M.F. (2000). Analyzing student interaction processes in order to improve collaboration. The DEGREE approach.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 221–241.
Bauer, M. (2000). Classical content analysis: a review. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.),Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 131–151). London: Sage.
Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986).Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. Basic Books, Inc.
Bonk, C.J., & King, K.S. (1998).Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Burbules, N.C. (1993).Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Campos, M. (2004). A constructivist method for the analysis of networked cognitive communication and the assessment of collaborative learning and knowledge building.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 1–29.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.),Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.
Duffy, T.M., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C.L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. Center for Research on Learning and Technology,Technical Report No. 5-98. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education.American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.
Gunawardena, C.N., Lowe, C.A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.
Hathorn, L.G., & Ingram, A.L. (2002). Online collaboration: Making it work.Educational Technology, 42(1), 33–40.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A.R. Kaye (Ed.),Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 115–136). New York: Praeger.
Henri, F., & Rigault, C. (1996). Collaborative distance education and computer conferencing. In T.T. Liao (Ed.),Advanced educational technology: Research issues and future potential (pp. 45–76). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Herring, S.C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J.H. Gray (Eds.),Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376)., New York: Cambridge University Press.
Herring, S.C. (2000). Gender differences in CMC: Findings and implications.Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Newsletter. Retrieved October 27, 2000, from the http://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/index.html.
Herring, S.C. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S.C. Herring (Ed.)Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 81–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Herring, S.C. (1994). Politeness in computer culture: Why women thank and men flame. In M. Bucholtz, A. Liang, & L. Sutton (Eds.), Cultural performances.Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference, (pp. 278–94). Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
Howell-Richardson, C., & Mellar, H. (1996). A methodology for the analysis of patterns of participation within computer mediated communication courses.Instructional Science, 24, 47–69.
Islas, J.R.L. (2004). Collaborative learning at Monterrey Tech-Virtual University. In T.M. Duffy & J.R. Kirkley (Eds.),Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education (pp. 297–320). Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B.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, discord and knowledge construction.Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–74.
Newman, D.R., 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.
Ravenscroft, A. & Pilkington, R.M. (2000). Investigation by design: Developing dialogue models to support reasoning and conceptual change.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 273–298.
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis.Educational Technology Research, & Development, 52(1), 5–18.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8–22.
Searle, J.R. (1969).Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tan, S.C., Turgeon, A.J., & Jonassen, D.H. (2001). Develop critical thinking in group problem solving through computer-supported collaborative argumentation: A case study.Journal of Natural Resources and Life Science Education, 30, 97–103.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Trena M. Paulus is an Assistant Professor in Collaborative Learning in the Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, housed in the College of Education, Health & Human Sciences at the University of Tennessee. She has taught and conducted teacher training in the areas of English as a second/foreign language, computer-assisted language learning, and online collaborative learning both in the United States and abroad. Her current research is in the area of computer-mediated communication, discourse analysis methods, and distance education. She holds a PhD in Instructional Systems Technology and a MA in Applied Linguistics.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Paulus, T.M. Challenge or connect? dialogue in online learning environments. J. Comput. High. Educ. 18, 3–29 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03032722
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03032722