aect 2015: interaction patterns and knowledge construction behaviors in discussion forums of a pd...

Jiyae Bong Vanessa Dennen

Instructional Systems &Learning Technologies

Presenters AECT Annual Conference

Interaction Patterns and Knowledge Construction Behaviors

In Discussion Forums of a PD MOOC

November 5, 2015

Introduction

Research Background

• Asynchronous Online Discussion Activities

• MOOCs

Purpose of the Study

To contribute to the knowledge base on how learners interact and

engage in knowledge construction activities within a PD MOOC



Research Questions1. What are the interaction patterns of participants across

the modules of the MOOC?

2. To what degree did participants engage in knowledge

construction activities across each module of MOOC?



About the MOOC Topic: Social Media for Active

Learning

Length: 4 weeks

Focus: Professional Development

Platform: Blackboard CourseSites

Format:

Weekly modules, complementary but not cumulative

Video lectures , webinars, discussions, quizzes, assignments

End of module badges + end of course certificate

Curation Social Media Lessons

Personal Learning Networks

Privacy & Ethics



Method

Research Design & Participants• Naturalistic case study

• 147 students, 15 teaching assistants, and one instructor

who actively participated in the discussion activities

through the Blackboard CourseSite.

Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Total

# of

Threads6 8 8 5 27

Total Posts 357 260 200 97 914

# of

Speakers102 58 45 37 242

Table 1. Discussion Forum Format and the Data Set



Data Collection and Analysis Quantitative Data

Framework for Interaction Patterns

Adapted from Schegloff (2007), Sinclair & Coulthard (1975),

and Wise et al. (2013)

• Conversational Structure

• Initiation – Response Pair

• Initiation – Response – Feedback

• Duration of Each Conversation Unit

• Displayed Order of the Initial Responses

• Speakers’ Membership



Data Collection and AnalysisCharts for Interaction Patterns

• Conversational Structure

• Duration of Each

Conversation Unit

• Displayed Order of the

Initial Responses

• Speakers’ Membership



Data Collection and Analysis Qualitative Data

Framework for Knowledge Construction ActivitiesAdapted from Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson (1997)

I. Sharing/ Comparing of Information

II. Exploration of Inconsistency

III. Co-Construction of Knowledge

IV. Applications of Newly-Constructed Meaning

Frequencies were calculated for each of the codes by

modules & each thread of each module.



Results

Interaction Patterns• Conversation Structure (# conversation units)

Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4

IRs 135 (64%) 87 (62.6%) 56 (51.4%) 35 (63.6%)

IRFs 76 (36.9%) 52 (37.4%) 53 (48.6%) 20 (36.4%)

Total 211 138 108 55

• Duration of Each Conversation Unit (# days)

Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4

Average 1.79 1.75 2.19 1.83

IRFs Aver 4.36 3.89 4.10 4.21

Total (C.U.) 211 138 108 55



Interaction Patterns• Module 1 – 4 Charts



Interaction Patterns



Interaction Patterns• The most common conversation structure was IR pair.

• The IRF sequences tended to appear at the first part of

each thread.

• Each IRF-type conversation lasted for 4.14 days at

average.

• Most of IRF sequences involved the instructor or

teaching assistants as one discourse partner.



Knowledge ConstructionModule 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4

I.

Sharing/Comparing

of Information

358

(79.56%)

214

(83.27%)

169

(77.52%)

78

(77.23%)

II.

Exploration of

Inconsistency

39

(8.67%)

16

(6.23%)

3

(1.38%)

4

(3.96%)

III.

Co-Construction of

Knowledge

44

(9.78%)

26

(10.12%)

26

(11.93%)

11

(10.89%)

IV.

Applications of

Newly-Constructed

Meaning

9

(2.00%)

1

(0.39%)

20

(9.17%)

8

(7.92%)



Discussion

Conclusions• Learners in this context will follow the directions they are

given rather than use learning spaces to initiate their own

discussions.

• Instructor involvement is important to promote deeper

discussion in this setting.

• In terms of knowledge construction, learners will share

their information by showing their agreement to the

information that the others posted and bring the other

examples. But there may not be many activities related to

the summarization of agreements.



Discussion• The interaction patterns can help us to understand

whether the MOOC provides the spaces each participant

exchange their ideas.

• There is the needs of building instructional strategies to

facilitate the conversation or discourse for the learning in

MOOC.

• Considering the lack of an omnipresent instructor or

teaching assistant and the scalability of the MOOC

context, the design of learning activities and the

development of technical infrastructure in MOOC

platform are critical.



THANK YOU! ANY QUESTIONS?

Contact:

Jiyae Bong – [email protected]

Vanessa Dennen - [email protected] - @vdennen

aect 2015: interaction patterns and knowledge construction behaviors in discussion forums of a pd...

Education