January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1 - Educational Technology ...

G4 53 (12.5) 48.9 (13.4) 0.39
G5 51.8 (14) 50.7 (12.1) 0.28
Note. only the scores of five groups are reported here.
Content analysis of student knowledge construction through social interaction
In average, the Flemish students posted weekly more messages per person (7.5 messages) in asynchronous group
discussions compared to the Chinese students (3.9 messages). For both groups, there were no significant differences
as to the number of messages posted by male and female students. To test whether the types of messages and the
achieved level of knowledge construction differ significantly, chi-square analyses were applied. The distribution of
types of message and level of knowledge construction through social negotiation of the two groups are presented in
Table 3.
The types of messages posted by both groups were rather similar, with a majority of them being task-oriented
messages. The two groups of students seemed to be similar regarding non-task-oriented messages, which were
technical, social, or related to planning. With regard to the levels of knowledge construction, the pattern of both
groups was also similar. Both groups contributed a majority of messages that were at the first level of knowledge
construction: sharing and comparing information. However, Flemish students contributed a higher frequency of
messages that were at the second level of knowledge construction, exploration of dissonance, compared to Chinese
students. Both groups contributed to a similarly lesser extent (about 12%) messages that were at the third level of
knowledge construction: negotiation of meaning. Both groups contributed very few messages (less than 4%) that
reached the fourth and fifth levels of knowledge construction.
Table 3. Types of messages and levels of knowledge construction
Chinese Flemish x 2 p c
Types of messages a
Task oriented 95.9% 94.2% 0.35 .505
Non-task oriented 4.1% 5.8% 11.25 .006
Irrelevant 0.3% 1% 11.58 .005
Technical 0.1% 0.5% 10.16 .052
Planning 0.7% 1.2% 10.11 .053
Social 3% 3.1% 0.27 .641
Levels of knowledge construction b
1. Sharing and comparing
79.5% 63.7% 1.65 .121
information
2. Exploration of dissonance 5.4% 19.7% 50.32 .000
3. Negotiation of meaning 11.3% 12.6% 3.88 .054
4. Testing synthesis 1.7% 2.8% 15.77 .005
5. Agreement statements and
applications of newly
constructed meaning
a. Coding based on Veerman et al., 2001.
b. Coding based on Gunawardena et al., 1997.
2.1% 1.2% 12.10 .006
c. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni correction is applied.
Discussion
This study focused on three key issues in relation to student satisfaction with the online learning environment, their
online performance, and knowledge construction in online group discussions.
Surveying students’ satisfaction with collaborative e-learning is a critical issue in promoting the innovative use of
modern educational technology, especially in different cultural contexts. Our results indicate that there were
significant differences between Chinese and Flemish students regarding their satisfaction and dissatisfaction with
132