Pedagogical lurking: Student engagement in non-posting discussion behavior
Introduction
To participate in the act of lurking is to observe a setting but not contribute in any noticeable way. Often the term “lurk” carries negative connotations, although it is perfectly reasonable to think that someone may wish to observe others’ communication and interactions with a positive intent. In an online environment identifying lurkers can be difficult, and some of the negative connotation seems to stem from people feeling uncomfortable about being observed in an unbeknownst manner.
In a class context, lurking tends to be restricted to known members and acts of lurking may be interspersed with acts of participation. Participation typically is demonstrated by the student posting a message, which serves as visual evidence. Posting a message, however, is a limited indicator of student engagement. In and of itself, the act only means that the student struck a few keys on the keyboard. Discussion itself requires a pattern of call and response, with turn-taking and listening being as important as contributing thoughts to the dialogue.
Is it possible that students might engage with the asynchronous discussion by reading, the online equivalent of listening? Of course. In a face-to-face classroom where airspace is limited, we readily acknowledge that not everyone will speak; alert physical attendance is one indicator to an instructor that a student is involved in the discussion, and generating participation is not overly difficult with a captive, live audience. However, in an online discussion, the participants are not captive. Instructors need to motivate their students to participate, and grades often are the motivator. However, grades based on message posting do not inherently encourage students to interact with and respond to each other – and if that is not at least somewhat the goal of the activity, then the rationale for requiring a discussion activity should re-examined.
The key objectives of this study are: (a) to document learner lurking behavior in terms of when and why it occurs (e.g. before learners participate as a form of modeling, or after the discussion is over as a form of reflection); (b) to determine whether learners perceive lurking behavior as contributing to their learning experience; and (c) to determine whether this non-visible behavior is at all related to high performance. In other words, this study sought to determine whether or not pedagogical lurking is a real and viable form of course participation.
This area of research is important with more and more instructors moving courses wholly or partly online, both by choice and by request of their educational institutions – a move that takes place largely without pedagogical support. It is not uncommon to find that instructors assign online discussion as a learning activity without a clear sense of how the activity will affect student learning. Similarly, assessment of online discussion tends to not occur or to be focused primarily on items that can be counted such as number and length of messages. Instructors need to know how their students are learning and how they might measure this learning. Reflection on online discourse may be one such method of student learning, but as of yet there is no recommended method of assessment. This study is first step toward being able to determining whether non-posting participation in online discussion, such as reading and reflecting, impact student learning. In turn, the answer to this question may lead to establishing methods of learning and assessment for online discussion activities that may be used on a widespread basis.
Section snippets
Is lurking bad?
The choice of using the term “lurk” to describe those who read but do not frequently post implies something negative in this activity. Lurkers as a category of online participant may be perceived as free-loaders, who benefit from an online community’s wisdom without giving anything back (Preece, Nonnecke, & Andrews, 2004). The concept of community voyeurs also may make some active participants feel uneasy.
In most Internet-based research, and virtual ethnography in particular, lurkers have been
Participants
Participants in this study were students in two education courses at a large, public university in the United States. Both courses, one at the undergraduate level (n = 15) and one at the graduate level (n = 17) were taught using a blended format; the classes were anchored by four face-to-face meetings (beginning, end, and Weeks 5 and 10), with online discussion and other learning activities such as quizzes facilitated via Blackboard during other weeks. Student participation in this study was
Course participation levels
Although there was no way to reliably document student message reading behavior, an overview of student message posting behavior was possible based on statistics generated by Blackboard (see Table 2). In general, most students in both classes posted at least one message every week, with message posting spread throughout the week. Few, however, achieved the suggested three postings per week that was suggested by their instructors. Hit counts, which indicate times that someone clicked on an
Discussion
The results showed that pedagogical lurking – that is, temporary situational or topical lurking in a class context – may just be part of regular online class participation. Although we tend to privilege active posting, logically there would be no value to people engaging solely in posting and never in reading. The students in this study indicated that they did at times log in just to read messages, for a variety of reasons. The students’ reasons for logging in and lurking as well as for posting
References (27)
Learning or lurking? Tracking the “invisible” online student
Internet and Higher Education
(2002)Instructional design and emerging models in higher education
Computers in Human Behavior
(2001)- et al.
The top 5 reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone
Computers in Human Behavior
(2004) Development of an instrument to measure classroom community
The Internet and Higher Education
(2002)- et al.
Design guidelines for Web-based courses
- et al.
Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics
- et al.
How do students participate in synchronous and asynchronous online discussions?
Journal of Educational Computing Research
(2001) Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts
Journal of the Learning Sciences
(2003)- et al.
Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE
International Journal of Science Education
(2000) Monitoring online communication: Can the development of convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment
Distance Education
(2004)
From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in online discussion
Distance Education
Productive engagement through lurking in online class discussion
Providing fine-grained feedback within an on-line learning system: Identifying the workers from the lurkers and the shirkers
The Electronic Journal of e-Learning
Cited by (140)
Impact of role assignment and group size on asynchronous online discussion: An experimental study
2023, Computers and EducationEngagement as antecedent of academic achievement and the moderating impact of work-family-school inter-role conflict for online graduate students
2022, International Journal of Management EducationExploring English Lecturers’ Self-Efficacy in the Use of Educational Technology in Post COVID-19 Pandemic
2024, Studies in English Language and EducationDifferences in sense of community and participation between lurkers and posters in informal online education-related communities
2024, Behaviour and Information Technology