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

collaboration might be better suited for learning regarding ill-structured problem solving. They also suggested use of
asynchronous communication to large group and synchronous communication to small group. Veerman and
Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001) reported that more off-task related messages occurred in synchronous fora and more task
related, constructive, and high level of knowledge construction messages occurred in asynchronous fora.
Consequently, it is crucial to analyze the type and the quality of interaction and what factors influence discussion to
promote the use of online fora in diverse situations. There are a number of variables and influences on the
effectiveness of online discussion. The role of the instructor and the degree of the instructor’s intervention
(Andresen, 2009; Coppola, Hiltz, & Rotter, 2002; Tutty & Klein, 2008), learner characteristics (Bullen, 1998), the
nature of tasks (Dysthe, 2002; Puntambekar, 2006; Tutty & Klein, 2008), students’ participation (Dysthe, 2002;
Moore & Marra, 2005), the structure of discussion and the discussion question (Bodzin & Park, 2000; Brooks &
Jeong, 2006; Moore & Marra, 2005; Salmon, 2002), group composition (Guldberg & Pilkington, 2006; Tutty &
Klein, 2008) and size (Chai & Tan, 2009), student perceptions (Puntambekar, 2006), for example were referred to as
important influences on online discussion.
There have been many studies regarding asynchronous fora. However, online fora were used as a supplementary
learning tool of small graduate level courses. Even though the majority (over 82 percent) of online courses had
occurred at the undergraduate level (Allen & Seaman, 2010), there was little research focusing on undergraduate
level (e.g., Bodzin & Park, 2000; Veerman & Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2001) compared with that of graduate level (e.g.,
Fahy, Crawford, & Ally, 2001; Moore & Marra, 2005; Pawan, Paulus, Yalcin, & Chang, 2003; Puntambekar, 2006).
Most studies supported the educational significance of online fora focusing on sharing information, brainstorming or
internalization of knowledge and presented practical implications for effective design of online discussion. However,
these studies have indicated that most knowledge building activities were limited within lower phases.
There were also a few studies targeting large enrollment courses (e.g., Guzdial & Turns, 2000; Schellens & Valcke,
2005) because both instructors and students were concerned about both interaction and workload, and in these
instances it was more difficult to engage students in online discussions than in face-to-face discussions. Guzdial and
Turns (2000) measured the extent of over 1000 undergraduates’ participation in online environment and focused the
participation dimension instead of knowledge construction. Schellens and Valcke (2005) confirmed that the
interaction in a large online course with the weekly face-to-face session was very task-oriented and the amount of
discussion activity was important influence on the nature and quality of the discussion and the phase of knowledge
construction.
Further research is needed to enlarge the scope of its use in higher education regardless of the size of course and
level of study. This study aimed to describe the major characteristics of interaction and participation patterns in a
large online course. This study attempted to explain how the discussion question and evaluation criteria influenced
the nature of discussion focusing on interaction and knowledge construction. The results will contribute to
understanding online interaction and developing effective online instructional strategies.
Methods
Case and participants
This case study was conducted in an online undergraduate course in South Korea during the spring of 2008. This
course was an elective course and it was entitled “Leadership Development”. This course lasted sixteen weeks and
students learned diverse leadership theories. A total of 100 students enrolled in this course. 88 students actually
participated in an online discussion and there were 38 females and 50 males. There were 7 freshmen, 14 sophomores,
26 juniors, and 41 seniors. There were 30 engineering, 24 arts and physical education, 19 natural science, 13
architecture, 1 humanities, and 1 social science major. The age of the students ranged from 19-25 years with a mean
age of 22.3 years. Online discussion was scheduled for one week but it proceeded for two weeks (24 March-6 April)
because of students’ low participation during the first week. Students could only communicate in an online
environment and there was no face-to-face meeting. One female faculty member taught this course and one teaching
assistant helped. The grade was decided by an individual task (case study for selected leader), examination, two
online discussion sessions, and attendance. Each online discussion score was 5% of final grades. Online discussion
was scheduled in week 4 and week 13.
261