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

was participative and was represented by the numbers of posted messages. The second was interactive and was
divided into initiation and response. Initiation meant introduction of new topics or facilitation of discussion and came
with response. Response included explicit response which directly responded to previous massage with calling name,
and implicit response which expanded on a previous message. An independent message having no response was
excluded in this study. The third was cognitive and meant exhibiting knowledge and skills related to the course
content. It consisted of elementary clarification, in-depth clarification, inference, judgment, and strategies. The fourth
was metacognitive and meant general knowledge and skills of the learning process and self-regulation of learning.
The fifth was social and not related to the formal content of subject matter. Henri and Rigault (1996) added an
organizational dimension which related to how to organize and accomplish a group project and course management.
In this study, interaction type included initiation, explicit response, and implicit response. Interaction function
consisted of cognitive, metacognitive, social, and organizational interaction.
Henri’s model was attractive because it helped to understand how interactivity including cognitive and metacognitive
process of individuals occurs in a group (Lally, 2001). However, it was limited in explaining collaborative
knowledge construction because it focused on quantitative aspects of participation (De Wever et al., 2006). Thus,
this study was based on Gunawardena et al.’s five-phase interaction analysis model (IAM) to indicate the degree of
the phase of knowledge construction activities. These successive five phases consisted of (1) sharing and comparing
of information, (2) discovery and exploration of dissonance or inconsistency among ideas, concepts, or statements,
(3) negotiation of meaning and/or co-construction of knowledge, (4) testing and modification of proposed synthesis
or co-construction, and (5) agreement statements and applications of newly-constructed meaning. It was suited for
describing a discussion flow and knowledge construction (Marra et al., 2004). The model has been used in many
studies (e.g., Chai & Tan, 2009; Fahy et al., 2001; Moore & Marra, 2005; Schellens & Valcke, 2006) among online
discussion forum transcripts analysis.
There were several different activities from indicators of each phase of IAM. The researcher modified indicators of
each phase of knowledge construction (see Table 3) to categorize the data considering the meaning of each phase.
The researcher and another rater coded all messages for data analysis to validate the coding procedures and the
coders discussed and negotiated regarding the difference in coding to achieve agreement. Inter-rater reliabilities were
calculated to express consistency. Cohen’s k reliabilities for interaction type, function, and phase of knowledge
building were .98, .84, and .69, respectively.
Table 3. Indicators of Each Phase of Knowledge Construction (Adapted from Gunawardena et al., 1997)
Phase Stage Indicators
1: Sharing/Comparing of Information A Citation of information/ Presenting opinion
B Agreement with other’s opinion
C Providing examples to support other’s opinion
D Asking detailed explanation regarding opinion
E Description of the discussion question
2: Discovery and exploration of
A Stating of disagreement
dissonance/ inconsistency among ideas, B Asking to clarify the reason of disagreement
concepts, or statements/supporting C Restating own opinion or supporting by suggestion
3: Negotiation of meaning / co-
A Clarification of the meaning of terms
construction of knowledge
B A statement of agreement and relative weight to disagreement
C Identification of specific disagreement
D Proposal of new statements embodying negotiation
E Proposal of integration
4: Testing and modification of proposed A Testing against facts that participants already knew
synthesis or co-construction
B Testing against previous knowledge/concept
C Testing against previous experience or recent experience
D Testing against resource provided
E Testing against contradictory testimony in the textbook
5: Agreement statements/ applications of A Convergence and summarization of participants agreements
newly-constructed meaning
B Application of new knowledge
C Statements by participants showing their understanding that they
experienced critical reflection
263