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

This study focused on online fora in order to analyze students’ interaction; the first online discussion session was
randomly selected. The discussion consisted of 10 groups of 10 students. Each group consisted of heterogeneous
members considering gender, major, and grade. Each group should discuss which leadership theory was more
effective: trait theory (Are leaders born?) or situational theory (Are leaders made?) considering their experiences,
characters, and future jobs during one week. All 10 groups discussed the same questions on the bulletin boards at the
same time but within their separate online group boards. The instructor posted names of group members and
participation protocols or evaluation criteria before the online discussion started. Participation protocols or
evaluation criteria specified how to participate in the online discussion, the deadline of discussion, and the minimum
number and the type of posting. In other words, students should post their own thoughts and more than five
responses to get a perfect score (5 point). Irrelevant messages did not get a score. The score was decided based on the
number of initiations and response posting. Table 1 shows evaluation criteria.
Table 1. Evaluation Criteria
Number of Initiations Number of Responses Score
0 1-2 1
0 3-4 2
0 More than 5 3
1 0 2
1 1-2 3
1 3-4 4
1 More than 5 5
Data collection
Online messages posted by students were collected as a main source of data. All students’ online discussions were
automatically stored on the host computer because it was based on text-based communication. After the online
discussion was finished, the researcher read postings several times and divided them into each group and discussion
thread. The researcher interviewed four randomly chosen students and reviewed course evaluation to supplement the
data. Interview contributed to understanding reasons for the patterns of interaction and participation and the meaning
of online interaction. Table 2 shows backgrounds of four interviewees.
Table 2. Backgrounds of the interviewees
Interviewee’s Name (Pseudonym) Gender Grade Age Major
Brian M Senior 23 Physical Education
Emily F Senior 22 Art
Kathy F Junior 21 Chemistry
Eric M Sophomore 21 Civil Engineering
Data analysis
Each message was used as an individual unit of data analysis. Each individual message was coded according to eight
variables (Author, Date, Group, Number of References, Number of Responses, Interaction Type, Interaction
Function, and Phase of Knowledge Construction) for the examination of the patterns of interaction and participation,
and the phase of knowledge construction. Eight variables were selected for explanation of the relationship between
discussion question or evaluation criteria and knowledge construction. Author, date, group, and number of references
automatically appeared in an online fora. Number of responses was calculated based on a message flow. All of the
student names were replaced with pseudonyms.
Multidimensional analysis framework is necessary for in-depth understanding because online interaction is complex
(Chai & Khine, 2006). Content analysis should be used to evaluate the quality of online discussion (Celentin, 2007;
De Wever et al., 2006; Mazur, 2004). Many researchers (e.g., Gunawardena et al., 1997; Hara, Bonk, & Angeli,
2000; Henri, 1992; Newman, Webb, & Cochrane, 1995) have developed frameworks and indicators regarding
content analysis. This study was based on Henri and Rigault’s (1996) content analysis for analysis of interaction type
and function. Henri’s (1992) frequently used content analysis consisted of the following five dimensions. The first
262