Content analysis of computer conferencing transcripts

Abstract

As conferencing tools become an increasingly common feature in students' experience, tutors need to have an understanding of how these tools facilitate the formation and maintenance of collaborative learning communities. Inevitably the pursuit of this understanding requires some form of analysis of the interactions involved. This analysis of the written transcripts, created by students during computer mediated conferencing (CMC), invariably takes the form of a systematic content analysis. For small-scale work the analysis can be undertaken manually but when the volume is large, as might arise from courses delivered wholly online or in a blended learning approach for example, some form of automated content analysis comes into its own. Whether analysed quantitatively or qualitatively, there is much to commend this type of approach by higher education tutors wishing to assess the progress of their students and improve their understanding of how students learn through computer conferencing technology. On the basis that tutors need to have an awareness of the advantages and limitations of such tools, this paper examines the content analysis approaches currently available. This debate generally focuses on the appropriateness of the methodology and the representation of interaction patterns and learning processes. In this paper we propose to extend Rourke et al.'s study to cover a wider range of methodological models.Specifically we examine the merits and demerits of these models as exemplified in a selection of influential conferencing analysis studies.

Structured and unstructured discussion forums as tools for student engagement

“…One such tool is an asynchronous online discussion forum (Hiltz & Goldman, 2005;Palloff & Pratt, 2007;Vai & Sosulski, 2011). Many have suggested that forums can be used to promote student engagement (Bean, 2011;Brookfield & Preskill, 2005;Donnelly & Gardner, 2011), but we argue that the level of structure imposed on forums can influence how students engage in the activity. Therefore, this study examines the effects of structured and unstructured discussion forums on student engagement.…”

Structure Matters: Adoption of Structured Classification Approach in the Context of Cognitive Presence Classification

“…One of the biggest practical challenges in adoption of the CoI framework -and other transcript analysis methods -is that it requires experienced coders and substantial labor-intensive work to code (i.e. categorise) discussion messages for the levels of three presences [17,4]. As such, it is argued that this and similar approaches have had very little practical impact upon current educational practices [4].…”

“…categorise) discussion messages for the levels of three presences [17,4]. As such, it is argued that this and similar approaches have had very little practical impact upon current educational practices [4]. To enable for a more proactive use of the Community of Inquiry framework by the course instructors, there is a need for an automated content analysis of online discussions that would provide instructors with a real-time feedback about student learning activities [15].…”

“…The CoI framework defines multi-dimensional content analysis schemes [4] for the coding of student discussion messages, which is the main unit of analysis used to assess the level of the three presences. This framework has gained considerable attention in the educational research community, with a large number of replication studies and empirical validations (cf.…”

Making meaning through joint activity in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) settings: The interplay between content-related and activity-related talk

“…The former, which make up the bulk of these papers (see for example the reviews by De Wever, Schellens, Valcke, & Van Keer, 2006;Dennen, 2008;Donnelly & Gardner, 2009), argue that ontopic talk makes a direct contribution to the processes involved in learning (e.g. Guzdial & Turns, 2000;Lipponen, Rahikainen, Lallimo, & Hakkarainen, 2003;Veerman & Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2001).…”