Life history of a topic in an online discussion: a complex systems theory perspective on how one message attracts class members to create meaning collaboratively

Vogler, Jane S.; Schallert, Diane L.; Jordan, Michelle E.; Song, Kwangok; Sanders, Anke J.Z.; Chiang, Yueh hui Yan Te; Lee, Ji Eun; Park, Jeong-bin Hannah; Yu, Li

doi:10.1007/s11412-017-9255-9

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some examples of research that respond to these findings, according to this type of methodology are based on SCOPUS and use quantitative methodology [56][57][58][59], use qualitative methodology [60][61][62][63], and use mixed methods [64][65][66][67]. In the WOS database, we cited some cases of articles with quantitative methodology [68][69][70][71], qualitative [72][73][74][75] and mixed methods [76][77][78][79].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mediation and Online Learning: Systematic Literature Mapping (2015–2020)

Riofrío-Calderón

Ramírez-Montoya

2022

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mediation is a crucial element in the learning process, especially in a virtual environment, whether it corresponds to formal, non-formal, or informal education. This paper aims to expose the research on mediation and learning in virtual environments published between 2015 and 2020. A total of 299 articles were identified that address the topic of mediation and learning in virtual environments from different fields and approaches. The results that respond to the research questions are presented. The study was carried out with the Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus databases, and inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to obtain the articles under study. The Systematic Literature Mapping (SLM) method was used to answer questions raised for analysis. Information was extracted from the articles regarding the method used, the most cited articles, geographical distribution of the authors by country, the journals and impact factor, type of mediation, and finally, the trends and spaces where mediation takes place. The results show studies tending toward technological mediation and factors such as interaction, collaboration, communication, and discussion, among others. The practical implications are oriented to show the mediating factor from the pedagogical and technological perspectives and its contribution to achieve meaningful learning.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mediation and Online Learning: Systematic Literature Mapping (2015–2020)

Riofrío-Calderón

Ramírez-Montoya

2022

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A third cluster of six articles has four articles by Alterman, beginning with Larusson and Alterman (2009). The other two articles in this cluster are Schneider and Pea (2013), which is cited by Vogler et al (2017) in addition to Alterman and Harsch (2017). The final cluster of twelve interlinked articles is primarily composed of articles citing Dennen (2005; three citations) and Dennen and Wieland (2007;seven citations).…”

Section: Research Question 3: the Research Conversationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…van Heijst et al (2019) proposed and tested their own framework focused on socio-cognitive openness. Other articles did not anchor their analysis around a specific framework, but nonetheless referred to taking systems perspective (e.g., Ligorio et al, 2008;Vogler et al, 2017), or focused on issues of quality (Eryilmaz et al, 2021;Nandi et al, 2012;Schneider & Pea, 2013;Sykes, 2005). These frameworks are evidence of the varied ways that researchers have sought to elucidate intersubjectivity within a data set.…”

Section: Titles and Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beyond these works, the articles demonstrate foundations in fields like linguistics, sociology, communication, instructional design, and learning sciences, with many notable scholars referenced. Antoniadou, 2011;Bures et al, 2010;Damsa, 2014;Evans et al, 2011;Hui & Russell, 2007;Larusson & Alterman, 2009;Lee & Song, 2016;Ligorio et al, 2008;Mahardale & Lee, 2013;McAlister et al, 2004;Onrubia & Engel, 2012;Peterson, 2012;Pifarré & Kleine Staarman, 2011;Satar, 2013Satar, , 2015Schneider & Pea, 2013;Vogler et al,…”

Section: Figure 6 Google Scholar Citations By Publication Yearmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic Review of Research on Intersubjectivity in Online Learning: Illuminating Opportunities for Cohesion and Mutual Understanding in the Research Conversation

Dennen

Hall

Hedquist

2023

OLJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many online learning experiences integrate some form of dialogic interaction among instructors and learners. However, the degree to which these individuals come to a mutual understanding of their task and topic, a phenomenon called intersubjectivity, often remains a question. This systematic review of online learning research examines 48 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2004 and 2021, looking at the overall trajectory of the research conversation across time, disciplines, modality and learning activities; major trends in methods, and focus; and interconnectedness. Findings suggest a dispersed body of literature, with some small groups of interconnected work but little cohesion or traction as a research field. This review has implications for future researchers in this area, who are encouraged to synthesize across this body of research and work together to establish and pursue an agenda for the field that will not only further inquiry in this area but also lead to practical knowledge about learning activity design and facilitation that is useful to online instructors.

show abstract

“…van Heijst et al (2019) proposed and tested their own framework focused on socio-cognitive openness. Other articles did not anchor their analysis around a specific framework, but nonetheless referred to taking systems perspective (e.g., Ligorio et al, 2008;Vogler et al, 2017), or focused on issues of quality (Eryilmaz et al, 2021;Schneider & Pea, 2013;Sykes, 2005). These frameworks are evidence of the varied ways that researchers have sought to elucidate intersubjectivity within a data set.…”

Section: Titles and Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%