Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Online class size, note reading, note writing and collaborative discourse

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

Abstract

Researchers have long recognized class size as affecting students’ performance in face-to-face contexts. However, few studies have examined the effects of class size on exact reading and writing loads in online graduate-level courses. This mixed-methods study examined relationships among class size, note reading, note writing, and collaborative discourse by analyzing tracking logs from 25 graduate-level online courses (25 instructors and 341 students) and interviews with 10 instructors and 12 graduate students. The quantitative and qualitative data analyses were designed to complement each other. The findings from this study point to class size as a major factor affecting note reading and writing loads in online graduate-level courses. Class size was found positively correlated with total number of notes students and instructors read and wrote, but negatively correlated with the percentage of notes students read, their note size and note grade level score. In larger classes, participants were more likely to experience information overload and students were more selective in reading notes. The data also suggest that the overload effects of large classes can be minimized by dividing students into small groups for discussion purposes. Interviewees felt that the use of small groups in large classes benefited their collaborative discussions. Findings suggested 13 to 15 as an optimal class size. The paper concludes with a list of pedagogical recommendations and suggestions for new multimedia software features to enhance collaborative learning in online classes.

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

Fig. 1
Figure 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

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

Notes

  1. The study is discussed in detail in Qiu 2009, on which this article is based.

References

  • Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environment. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender, T. (2003). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bi, X. (2000). Instructional design attributes of web-based courses. Athens: Ohio State University (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 448746).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boettcher, J. V. (1999). What does knowledge look like and how can we help it grow? Syllabus Magazine, 13(2), 64–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the experimental literature. The Journal of Business communication, 34, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (2nd ed.). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1986). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clouder, L., Dalley, J., Hargreaves, J., Parkes, S., Sellars, J., & Toms, J. (2006). Electronic reconstruction of group dynamics from face-to-face to an online setting. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 467–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 3–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, J. L., & Jenks, C. F. (2004). The upper limit: The issues for faculty in setting class size in online courses. Retrieved September 17, 2008 from http://www.ipfw.edu/tohe/Papers/Nov%2010/015__the%20upper%20limit.pdf

  • Creswell, J. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davie, L. (1988). Facilitating adult learning through computer-mediated distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 55–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dohn, N. B. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 343–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. A., & Wojnar, L. C. (2004). Successful synchronous and asynchronous discussions: Plan, implement, and evaluate. Retrieved September 17, 2008 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/MAC0426.pdf

  • Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, G., & Smith, M. (1979). Meta-analysis of research on class size and achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1, 2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R., & Misanchuk, M. (2004). Computer-mediated learning groups: Benefits and challenges to using groupwork in online learning environments. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 181–202). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakkaranen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2007). The relationship between class size and online activity patterns in asynchronous computer conferencing environments. Computers & Education, 49, 1258–1271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J., Brett, C., & Peters, V. (2007). Scan rate: A new metric for the analysis of reading behaviors in asynchronous computer conferencing environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hron, A., & Friedrich, H. F. (2003). A review of web-based collaborative learning: Factors beyond technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 70–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubscher-Younger, T., & Narayanan, N. H. (2003). Authority and convergence in collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 41, 313–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, D. (2008). Teaching practices for effective cooperative learning in an online learning environment (OLE). Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(3), 357–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, A. L., & Hathorn, L. G. (2004). Methods for analyzing collaboration in online communications. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 215–241). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindstrom, B. (2006). A relational, indirect, meso-level approach to CSCL design in the next decade. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 35–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keegan, D. (2002). The future of learning: from eLearning to mLearning. ZIFF Papier, 119, Fern-University Hagen.

  • Kerka, S. (1996). Distance learning, the Internet, and the World Wide Web. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED395214)

  • Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2008). Group awareness and self-presentation in computer-supported information exchange. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (2008). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipponen, L., & Lallimo, J. (2004). Assessing applications for collaboration: From collaboratively usable applications to collaborative technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 433–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masters, A., & Oberprieler, G. (2004). Encouraging equitable online participation through curriculum articulation. Computers & Education, 42, 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, T., McArdle, G., & Bertolotto, M. (2008). Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1339–1353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L., Krueger, R. A., & King, J. A. (1998). Focus group kit. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori (Ed.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research: Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design (pp. 189–208). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neo, M. (2003). Developing a collaborative learning environment using a web-based design. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 462–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pena, C. M. (2004). The design and development of an online, case-based course in a teacher preparation program. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(2), 1–18. Retrieved on September 20, 2008 from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/3.2.4.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qiu, M. (2009). A mixed methods study of class size and group configuration in online graduate course discussions. Open library published doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

  • Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, M. R., & Hopewell, T. M. (2003). Web-based instruction in technology education. Council on Technology Teacher Education, 52nd Yearbook: Selecting instructional strategies for technology education. McGraw Hill, Glencoe.

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). Retrieved at March. 2, 2010 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/79/152

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of education, (2nd ed., pp.1370–1373). New York: Macmillan Reference.

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoech, D. (2000). Teaching over the internet: Results of one doctoral course. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(4), 467–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, L. A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tao, P. K., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. Basingstoke: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomei, L. A. (2006). The impact of online teaching on faculty load: Computing the ideal class size for online courses. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 531–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigel, V. B. (2002). Deep learning for a digital age: Technology’s untapped potential to enrich higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuensch, K. L., Aziz, S., Ozan, E., Kishore, M., & Tabrizi, M. H. N. (2008). Pedagogical characteristics of online and face-to-face classes. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 523–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, H., & Morris, L. V. (2007). Collaborative course development for online courses. Innovative Higher Education, 32(1), 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Mingzhu Qiu, Jim Hewitt & Clare Brett

Authors
  1. Mingzhu Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jim Hewitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Clare Brett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mingzhu Qiu.

Appendixes

Appendixes

Table 1 Percentage of notes read, average number of notes read, or total number of notes read by a participant, a student, or an instructor in the 25 courses
Full size table
Table 2 Percentage of notes written, average number of notes written or total notes written by all participants, students, or instructors in 25 courses
Full size table
Table 3 Average size, reading ease score, or grade level score of notes by a participant, a student, or an instructor in the 25 courses
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Qiu, M., Hewitt, J. & Brett, C. Online class size, note reading, note writing and collaborative discourse. Computer Supported Learning 7, 423–442 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9151-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9151-2

Keywords