Abstract
THIS STUDY used precepts of social network theory to examine the interactional and structural characteristics of communication in peer-mentoring conferences. Twelve discussion conferences were set up to support students during a teaching practicum experience. The conferences were governed by students with minimal instructor involvement. It was reasoned that because the conferences were established as a support network discussions would exhibit epistolary forms of communication indicative of students aligning with and supporting others. Epistolary discourse types were found. However, discussants posted a high proportion of expository statements or statements characterized by an intention to inform rather than support or engage with others. As dialogue progressed though, epistolary communication emerged.
The study also found that enabling students to govern their own conferences can be useful and a viable means for them to support one another within a learning context. The conference density of connectedness among discussants reported in the study was small. It is suggested that as density increases and the number of connections grow, managing information will likely become challenging and thus the services of a moderator may be useful to engender effective communication.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001) Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2). Retrieve June 4, 2007, from: http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/ jaln/v5n2/v5n2_anderson.asp
Berkowitz, S.D. (1982).An introduction to structural analysis. Toronto: Butterworths.
Boissevain, J. (1974).Friends of friends. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Boyd, D., Lee, H-Y, Ramage, D., & Donath, J. (2002). Developing legible visualizations for online social spaces.Proceedings of HICSS-35: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1060–1069). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Brilhart, J.K, & Galanes, G.J. (1992).Effective group discussion (7th ed.). Madison, WI: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
Brown, F.B., & Brown, Y. (1994). Distance education around the world. In B. Willis (Ed.),Distance education strategies and tools (pp. 3–39). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.
Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintaining community in cohort-based online learning.Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1–20.
Donath, J., Karahalios, K., & Viegas, F. (1999). Visualizing conversation.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieve June 5, 2007, from http:// jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/donath.html
Driscoll, M.P. (2000).Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Fahy, P., Crawford, G., & Ally, M. (2001). Patterns of interaction in a computer conference transcript.The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieve June 2, 2007, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/36
Fahy, P. (2002). Epistolary and Expository Interaction Patterns in a Computer Conference Transcript.Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 20–35.
Fahy, P.J. (2003). Indicators of support in online interaction.International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(1). Retrieve June 5, 2007, from http:// www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/129
Fahy, P J. (2005). Two methods for assessing critical thinking in computer-mediated communications (CMC) transcripts.International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(3). Retrieve June 5, 2007, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Mar_05/article02.htm
Garrison, R, Anderson, T, & Archer, W. (2001). Critical Thinking, Cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education.The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.
Gibbs, W.J., Simpson, L.J., & Bernas, R.S. (in press). An analysis of temporal norms in online discussions.International Journal of Instructional Media.
Gibbs, W.J. (2006). Visualizing interaction patterns in online discussions and indices of cognitive presence.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 18(1), 30–54.
Hanneman, R.A., & Riddle, M. (2005).Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside (published in digital form). Retrieve July 1, 2007, from http://faculty.ucr.edu/≈hanneman/
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). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Herring, S.C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieve June 5, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ vol4/issue4/herring.html
Hewitt, J., & Teplovs, C. (1999). An analysis of growth patterns in computer conferencing threads.Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999 Conference, C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Dec. 12–15, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California (pp. 232–241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hickson, M., Stacks, D.W., & Moore, N.J. (2004).Nonverbal communication: Studies and applications (4th ed.). Los Angles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Jeong, A. (2005).Methods and tools for the computational analysis of group interaction and argumentation in asynchronous online group discussions. Paper presented at the Learning and Technology Symposium at New York University, New York, NY. Retrieve June 5, 2007, from http://dev22448-01.sp01.fsu.edu/Research/ Proposals/LearnTechSymposium/Methods Tools Analyzing Interaction_Jeong2005.pdf
Jeong, A., & Davidson-Shivers, G.V., (2006). The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaboration argumentation.ETR & D, 54(1), 543–569.
Juler, P. (1990). Promoting interaction: Maintaining independence: Swallowing the mixture.Open Learning, 5(2), 24–33.
Kalman, Y.M., & Rafaeli, S. (2005). Email chronemics: Unobtrusive profiling on response time.Proceedings of HICSS-38: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 108b). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998, Spring). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction.Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–74.
Korenman, J., & Wyatt, N. (1996). Group dynamic in an e-mail forum. In S.C. Herring (Ed.),Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 225–242). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Lawlor, C. (2004).Gender interaction in computer mediated conferencing: Participation, purposive differences, and list effects. Unpublished master's thesis, Athabasca University, Athabasca, Canada. Retrieve June 1, 2007, from http:// library.athabascau.ca/thesis/lawlor.pdf
Levin, J., Kim, H., & Riel, M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic message networks. In L. Harasim (Ed.),Online education (pp. 185–213) NY: Praeger.
Maurino, P. (2007). Online asynchronous threaded discussion: Good enough to advance students through the proximal zone of activity theory?Tech Trends, 51(2), pp. 46–49.
Pawan, F., Paulus, T., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers.Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 119–140.
Ridley, C., & Avery, A. (1979).Social network influence on the dyadic relationship. In R. Burgess & T. Huston, (Eds.),Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 223–246). NY: Academic Press.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8–22.
Ryan, K., & Cooper, J.M. (2004).Those who can, teach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Savicki, V., Lingenfelter, D., & Kelley, M. (1996). Gender language style in group composition in Internet discussion groups.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(3). Retrieve May 30, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue3/savicki.html
Simon, H.A. (1996).The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Yates, S.Y. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. In S.C. Herring (Ed.),Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29–46). Philadelphia, Penn-sylvania: John Benjamins.
Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. Proceedings ofSelected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (18th, Indianapolis, IN, pp. 821–844).
Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions.Instructional Science, 34(6), 451–480.
Zhu, E. (1998). Learning and mentoring: Electronic discussions in a distance learning course. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.),Electronic co collaborators: Learnercentered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 233–259). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
ABOUT THE AUTHOR William J. Gibbs is Associate Professor in the Journalism and Multimedia Arts Department at Duquesne University where he teaches courses in multimedia, instructional design, online learning, and human computer interaction. He received his PhD in Instructional Systems from the Pennsylvania State University. His research interests include knowledge acquisition, technology-based learning environments, computer-mediated communication, and human-technology interaction.
Ronan S. Bernas is Professor of Psychology at Eastern Illinois University. He received his PhD in Psychology (Committee on Human Development) from the University of Chicago in 1995. His research is on argumentative and explanatory discourse.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gibbs, W.J., Bernas, R.S. Interactional and structural characteristics of communication and social interactions during computer-mediated communication. J. Comput. High. Educ. 20, 3–33 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03033430
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03033430