Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Barriers to online critical discourse

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This qualitative case study illustrates barriers to informal argumentation and reasoned debate, i.e., critical discourse, in online forums. The case is the computer conference of a 15-week, graduate-level humanities course offered entirely at a distance. Twelve students, all with families and careers, were enrolled in the course. We read all messages as they were posted and interviewed five of the students several times during the course. The students provided three insights into our interpretation that the forums contained little critical discourse: (1) The students did not orient to the conference as a forum for critical discourse, and worse, they had competing orientations; (2) they perceived critiques as personal attacks; and (3) they realized early on that critical discourse was a bothersome means to obtain their participation marks. Certain practices may ease some of these difficulties, including (1) well-structured learning activities with clearly defined roles for teachers and students, and (2) a method of assessing students’ participation that reflects the time and effort required to engage in critical discourse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Aviv, R., Zippy, E., Ravid, G., & Geva, A. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3). Retrieved April 20, 2006 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n3/v7n3_aviv.asp.

  • Azmita, M., & Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning. Social Development, 2(3), 202–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press (M. Holquist, Ed., C. Emerson & M. Holquist Trans.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H., Greer, B., & Hughes, E. (1995). Making the grade: The academic side of college life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belenky, M., Tarule, J., & Goldberger, N. (1997). Women’s ways of knowing: the development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, M. W., & Gibbs, J. C. (1983). Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 399–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C., & Cunningham, D. (1998). Searching for constructivist, learner-centered and sociocultural components for collaborative educational learning tools. In C. Bonk & K. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25–50). New York: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, G. (1987). Emancipative educational technology. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(2), 167–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookfield, S. (1994). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. Suffolk: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookfield, S., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham, S. (2003). Perspectives on the experience of the learning community through online discussion. Journal of Distance Education, 18(2). Retrieved December 30, 2005, from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol18.2/buckingham.pdf.

  • Bullen, M. (1999). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2). Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol13.2/bullen.html.

  • Burbules, N., & Bruce, B. (2001). Theory and research on teaching as dialogue. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1102–1121). New York: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burge, E. (1994). Learning in computer conferenced contexts: The learners’ perspective. Journal of Distance Education, 9(1). Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol9.1/burge.html.

  • Burniske, R. (2004). Acts of inquiry in digital dramas: A study of student-generated questions in global telecollaborative learning activity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. (1975). Degrees of freedom and case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8, 178–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, C. (1999). The effect of computer supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA) on argumentation skills in second year law students. doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.

  • Chen, V., & Hung, D. (2002). Personalized knowledge representations: The missing half of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, D. (2002). Community, social presence, and engagement in online learning. doctoral dissertation. Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://www.unbf.ca/education/welcome/people/conraddissertation.htm.

  • Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M., & Rouzie, A. (2002). Cooperation vs. deliberation: Computer mediated conferencing and the problem of argument in international distance education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v3.1/davis.html.

  • De Laat, M. (2001). Network and content analysis in an online community discourse. CSCL-ware in practice. New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1986). Individual and collective conflicts of centrations in cognitive development. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 105–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duphorne, P., & Gunawardena, C. (2005). The effect of three computer conferencing designs on critical thinking skills of nursing students. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastmond, D. (1995). Alone but together: Adult distance study by computer conferencing. New Jersey: Hampton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, M., & McCreary, E. (1985). The structure of message sequences in computer conferences: A comparative case study. Paper presented at the Workshop on Computer Conferencing and Electronic Messaging, Guelph, Canada.

  • Evans, T., & Nation, D. (1989). Critical reflections on distance education. London: Farmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, K. (1998). An analysis of electronic mail usage. Computer in Human Behavior, 14(2), 349–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feenberg, A. (1987). Computer conferencing and the humanities. Instructional Science, 16(2), 169–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B. (1996). Using journals in the social psychology class: Helping students apply course concepts to life experiences. Teaching Sociology, 24(2), 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, L. (1994). The naturalistic paradigm: Studying small groups in the postmodern era. Small Group Research, 25, 551–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 921–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, M. (2004). Learning together: Exploring group interactions online. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1). Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://cade.athabascau.ca/#vol19.1.

  • Gadamer, H. (1989). Truth and method (2nd ed.). New York: Crossroad. (J. Weinsheimer and D. Marshall, Trans.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, S., Scott, L., Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2005). Instructor influence in reasoned argument in discussion boards. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, N., & Driscoll, M. (2002). Collaborative knowledge building: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 59–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 20–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. N., Carabajal, K., & Lowe, C., (2001, November). Multi-faceted evaluation of online learning environments. Roundtable discussion at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) 2001 International Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.

  • Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & 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), 395–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. (1980). Some contrasting assumptions about case study research and survey analysis. In H. Simons (Ed.) Towards a science of the singular (pp. 76–92) Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N., Bonk, C., & Angeli, C. (2002). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harasim, L. (1986). Educational applications of computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harasim, L. (1990). Online education: Perspectives. London: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawisher, G., & Pemberton M.A. (March, 1997). Writing across the curriculum encounters asynchronous learning networks or WAC meets up with ALN. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(1). Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/index.asp.

  • Heimstra, R., & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizing instruction. Making learning personal, empowering, and successful. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, R., & Kearsley, G. (1995). Using a computer BBS for graduate education: Issues and outcomes. In Z. Berge & M. Collins (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom (Vol. III, pp. 129–137). New Jersey: Hamptom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, S. (1990). Evaluating the virtual classroom. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 133–169). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, R., & Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C., & Enyedy, N. (June, 1999). Between information and communication: Middle spaces in computer media for learning. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning conference, Bergen Norway.

  • Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance Education: International Perspectives (pp. 114–122). New York: St. Martin’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irvine, S. (2000, Feb). What are we talking about? The impact of computer-mediated communication on student learning. Society for information technology and teacher education international conference: Proceedings of SITE. San Diego, CA.

  • Jeong, A. (2004). The effects of communication style and message function in triggering responses and critical discussion in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Paper in conference proceedings for the Annual meeting of the Association of Educational Communications & Technology, Chicago, IL.

  • Jiang, M., & Ting, E. (1998, April). Course design, instruction, and students’ online behaviors: A study of instructional variables and students’ perceptions of online learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED421970).

  • Jonassen, D. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., & Kwon, H. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated vs. face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(10), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., Scanlon, E., & Blake, C. (1998) Reflections on a model for evaluating learning technologies. In M. Oliver & G. Conole (Eds.), Evaluating learning technologies. London: University of London Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). On-line forums: New platforms for professional development and group collaboration. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(3). Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue3/anderson.html#Professional.

  • Kanuka, H., & Rourke, L. (November, 2005a). The influence of learning activities on the quality of students’ participation in online discussion. Paper presented at the International Conference on Distance Education, New Delhi, India.

  • Kanuka, H., & Rourke, L. (May, 2005b). Moving beyond online discussions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association of Distance Education, Vancouver, Canada.

  • Kaye, A. (1992). Learning together apart. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 1–24). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemmis, S. (1980). The imagination of the case and the invention of the study. In H. Simons (Ed.), Towards a science of the singular (pp. 93–142). Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T. (Ed.) (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 83–119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Kruger, A., & Tomasello, M. (1986). Transactive discussion with peers and adults. Developmental Psychology, 22(5), 681–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ku, H., & Lohr, L. (2003). A case study of Chinese students’ attitudes toward their first online learning experience. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Islas (2001). A cross-cultural study of group processes and development in online conferences. Distance Education, 22(1), 85–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitland, K., & Goldman, J. (1974). Moral judgment as a function of peer group interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 699–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen, M. (1992). Commenting on written arguments as a part of argumentation skills: Comparisons between students engaged in traditional versus online study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 36(4), 289–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen, M. (1998). Learning of argumentation in face-to-face and e-mail environments. (ERIC Documents: ED 422791).

  • Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2002). Quality of students’ argumentation by e-mail. Learning Environments Research, 5(1), 99–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R. (1991). Analyzing computer conference interactions. International Journal of Computers in Adult Education and Training, 2(3), 161–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R. & Kaye, A. (Eds.) (1989). Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education. Oxford: Pergamon.

  • Mason, R., & Romiszkowski, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. (pp. 397–431). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComb, M. (1993). Augmenting a group discussion course with computer-mediated communication in a small college setting. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Center for Teaching and Technology, Academic Computer Center Georgetown University. Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1993/n3/mccomb.txt.

  • McLaughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2000). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how? Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://www.cleo.murdoch.edu.au/confs/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin.html.

  • Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moallem, M. (2003). An interactive online course: A collaborative design model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 85–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naidu, S., & Oliver, M. (1996). Computer supported collaborative problem based learning: An instructional design architecture for virtual nursing education. Journal of Distance Education, 11(2). Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol11.2/naiduoliver.html.

  • Northcote, M. (2003). Online assessment in higher education: The influence of pedagogy on the construction of students’ epistemologies. Issues in Educational Research, 13. Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume3/pre0030001a.html.

  • Orlikowski, W. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organizational Science 3(3), 398–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W., & Barley, S. (2002). Technology and institutions. What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly, 25(2). Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://www.misq.org/archivist/vol/no25/issue2/orlikowski.html.

  • Orlikowski, W., & Summer, T. (2002). Genre systems: Structuring interaction through communicative norms. Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 13–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, J. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Cornell: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W., & Gay, G (2001). An epistemological framework for analyzing student interactions in computer-mediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 41–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in Computer Bulletin Board (BBS) discussions. Computers and Education, 42, 243–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perret-Clairmont, A., Perret, J., & Bell, N. (1989). The social construction of meaning and cognitive activity of elementary school children. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially-shared cognition (pp. 41–62). Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M., & DeSanctis, G. (2004). Structuration theory in information systems research: Methods and controversies. In M. E. Whitman & A. B. Woszczynski (Eds.), The handbook of information systems research (pp. 206–249). New York: Idea Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L. (2005). Learning through online discussion. doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

  • Rourke, L., & Conrad, D. (May, 2004). Constructing computer conferencing in distance education journals. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Association of Distance Education, Toronto, Canada.

  • Rovai, A. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovai, A., & Barnum, K. (2003). Online course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 57–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruberg, L., Moore, D., & Taylor, C. (1996). Student participation, interaction, and regulation in a computer-mediated communication environment: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(3), 243–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardemalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer, E., Engel, C., McGrady, J., & Bhargava, T. (2001, March). Paper presented at the first European conference on computer supported collaborative learning, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands.

  • Smith, W. E. (1994). Computer-mediated communication: An experiment. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 48(4), 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2). Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol14.2/stacey.html.

  • Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenhouse, L. (1984). The study of samples and the study of cases. Presidential address to the British Educational Research Association.

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tergan, S. (1997). Misleading theoretical assumptions in hypertext/hypermedia research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6, 257–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: A review and case study. Computers & Education, 34(2), 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, A., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34(3–4), 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villalba, C., & Romiszowski, A. (2000). Structural communication and Web based instruction. In J. Bourdeau & R. Heller (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2000 (pp. 1111–1116). Montreal, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1972). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, E. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, S., Gregory, E., Lake, Y., & Gunawardena, C. (2003). Self-construal, facework, and conflict styles among cultures in online learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weedman, J. (1999). Conversation and community: The potential of electronic conferences for creating intellectual proximity in distance learning environments. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 50(10), 907–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1). Retrieved April 17, 2000, from http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/vol2_issue1/wegerif.htm.

  • Weick, K. (1990) Technology as equivoque: Sense-making in new technologies. In P. S. Goodman & L. S. Sproulls (Eds.), Technology and Organizations (pp. 1–44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1993). The collapse of sense-making in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. New York: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D., Varnhagen, S., Krupa, E., Kasprzak, S., Hunting, V., & Taylor. (2003). Instructors’ adaptation to online graduate education in health promotion: A qualitative study. Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfradt, U., & Doll, J. (2000). Motives of adolescents to use the Internet as a function of personality traits, personal and social factors. International Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24, 13–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yakimovicz, A., & Murphy, K. L. (1995). Constructivism and collaboration on the Internet: Case study of a graduate class experience. Computers in Education, 24(3), 203–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Sciences Lab, Learning Sciences and Technology Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, Singapore, 637616

    Liam Rourke

  2. Centre for Distance Education, Athabasca University, Athabasca, Canada

    Heather Kanuka

Authors
  1. Liam Rourke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather Kanuka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liam Rourke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rourke, L., Kanuka, H. Barriers to online critical discourse. Computer Supported Learning 2, 105–126 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9007-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9007-3

Keywords