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

of 52%; 14%; 33%; 1.2%; 0.4% from phase 1 to phase 5 respectively. Moore and Marra’s study (2005) also
indicated a result of 56%; 22%; 19%; 3%; 0% from phase 1 to phase 5 respectively.
This study is slightly different than prior studies which most postings represented either phase 1 or 2 and very few
postings in either section were coded in phase 4 or 5. Students focused on one issue within restricted time and they
should choose to agree or disagree with controversial issue. Discussion question promoted students sharing their
experience or challenging previous perspectives. It seems reasonable to assume that the discussion question and the
structure of discussion might influence facilitating higher phase of knowledge construction.
Conclusions
The results could be summarized as follows: (1) Students posted required messages in a short time around the duedate
and did not post any messages during other times within the restricted time. (2) Most interactions anchored the
first initiation and had little turn-taking. (3) Students read many peer’s postings but selectively responded according
to their interest. (4) There was a comparatively high portion of higher phase of knowledge construction and
metacognitive interaction. (5) Discussion question and evaluation criteria influenced the pattern of interaction and
participation, and knowledge construction.
The following instructional strategies could be suggested based on the results. First, this study showed a relatively
high degree of interaction and participation even in a large enrollment course. Accordingly, this study provided
instructors who teach in large online courses with confidence to attempt discussion in their course. Students more
actively participated in discussion as time went on, and demonstrated in particular high participation around the due
date. However, many students posted the required number of messages in a short time and spent most time reading
and thinking messages without posting any of their own during online discussion. Thus it is difficult to state that high
participation rate guarantees sustainable discussion. The result suggests that the density of network in term of
students building on each other’s messages should be considered for successful asynchronous fora. Therefore, the
instructor could assign students diverse roles such as summarizer, initiator, or opponent regarding encouraging their
participation and prevent lurking.
Second, this study showed that students over-relied on their first initiation and did not develop discussion threads.
Students posted their initiation regarding their own perspectives and selectively responded to peers’ opinions because
of evaluation criteria. The result confirmed that evaluation criteria influenced on the pattern of interaction and
participation. It is difficult to expect high level of knowledge construction within the structure of a forum having one
first level note followed by two or three responses (Chai & Khine, 2006). The result showed that it was possible to
obtain higher phase of knowledge construction within the structure of fora having serial monologue. However, this
study recommended two-way interaction for achieving sustainable discussion and promoting higher phase of
knowledge construction. Therefore, the instructor should pay more attention to the quality of interaction rather than
the quantity and design the structure of forum having one first level note followed by lots of responses to prevent
serial monologue in online interaction. Mandatory participation might lead to a psychological burden and have some
unintended side effects as a previous study indicated (Bullen, 1998). Thus, the instructor should make an effort to
decrease the negative effect of mandatory participation regarding facilitating responses. Delivering well-defined
instructor’s expectations, or learning goals in advance will be effective strategies to promote responses.
Third, time is an important factor for sustainable discourse to be achieved. Chai and Tan (2009) emphasized the
importance of allocating ample time for in-depth reflection and building relationships. Asynchronous interaction
might be a barrier in delivering important notification or connecting messages. Therefore, the instructor should allow
sufficient time of at least more than one week to warm up the discussion. However, simply providing students with
enough time was not a panacea for active student participation considering the high percentage of participation
around the due date and convergent participation. Thus, the instructor should recommend regular participation to
achieve more sustainable discussion. The instructor should focus how many times students participated in the
discussion rather than how many messages they posted as well.
Fourth, this study showed that a high portion of higher phase of knowledge construction, metacogntive, and taskoriented
interaction. The task which should support one perspective between two confrontational theories asked
students to retrospect their own experience, evaluate disposition, and connect theories learned with practice. It is not
269