84

Chapter 5
Patterns of Interaction
in Online Learning
Kevin Downing
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R.

Kristina Shin
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong S.A.R.

Flora Ning
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R.

AbsTRACT
This chapter describes a case study which examines detailed data related to student and tutor usage of an
asynchronous discussion board as an interactive communication forum during a first semester associate
degree course in applied psychology, and identifies ‘what works’ in relation to discussion board use. The
case demonstrates how students gradually create an online community, but only if they are prompted in
a timely and appropriate way by the course and assessment structure. Three distinct phases in online
interaction are identified, and the case suggests these might be largely mediated by assessment tasks.

INTRODUCTION learning environment (Downing & Chim, 2004a).

Some research suggests effective ways of creat-
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Learning facilitation, using the Web as a vehicle ing such an environment, (Chou, 2001; Gilbert
for content dissemination and teacher-student & Dabbagh, 2005; Henri & Pudelko, 2003) but
interaction, continues to dominate debates re- relatively few studies (De Laat & Lally, 2004;
lated to online learning (Nash, 2004). However, Yukselturk & Top, 2006) have undertaken de-
research conducted in this area tends to focus on tailed week by week analysis of tutor and student
examining the importance of teacher-student and discussion board activity throughout a semester,
student-student interaction in the online learning and then used this data to make recommendations
process, and in particular the use of discussion about how an effective online learning community
boards to assist in creating an effective online can be established with appropriate use of online
discussion board tools.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61692-791-2.ch005

Copyright © 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
<i>Developing and Utilizing E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

Online Learning: Interactivity, somehow flawed because it does not allow for
or Lack of Interactivity the social and emotional interaction allegedly
taking place in traditional classrooms. Downing
With the exponential growth in information and and Chim, (2004b) take a very different approach,
communication technology, educators are pre- investigating the relationship between personal-
sented with opportunities and challenges in terms ity type, preferred learning style, and different
of the use of the internet for formal educational learning environments, and demonstrating that
purposes and web-based instruction (Boettcher, classroom based ‘introverts’ behave more like
1999; Downing, 2001; Mc. Naught & Lam, 2005). ‘extraverts’ when involved in online discussion
The development of metacognition in under- forums, and that students with a more reflective
graduates is an area of focus for both traditional learning style are actually more active in online
classroom based and online learning environments discussions than when based in the classroom. In
(Downing et al, 2009). For example, the impact of some ways, well-designed online learning can be
social and cultural factors on cognitive develop- seen as a form of problem-based learning which
ment has long been recognised, with even Piaget requires the same facilitation or scaffolding that
(1977) acknowledging the impact of social factors is evident in the latter approach (Downing et al,
and peer interaction on cognitive development, 2009). In fact, it is perhaps an anomaly that the
and more recent studies have generally confirmed criticisms directed at online learning are not often
this view (Downing et al. 2007). Consequently, used against the problem-based approach which
the need to cultivate and maintain interactivity is often effectively online learning without being
within online learning environments remains a online whereby students are given problems to
major challenge. Previous research has gener- follow up and not always in collaboration with
ated consistent concern about a perceived lack their peers!
of interaction in online educational environments
(Hron & Friedrich, 2003), prompted by the prob- synchronous and
ably erroneous assumption that our ‘traditional’ Asynchronous Discussions
classrooms are filled with the vital learning inter-
activity that online environments supposedly lack. Synchronous learning is often referred to as ‘live’
For example, according to Robertson and Klotz learning in which student-student and student-
(2002), the literature provides evidence that online tutor interactions occur in real time. The critical
courses are often configured and delivered in a difference between synchronous (real time) and
style associated with independent study and that, asynchronous (anytime, anywhere) discussions
whilst this format might work in some instances, is described by Boaz et al. (1999) who suggest
it leaves what they call a ‘missing link’ in student that the growth of online ‘chat’ is evidence of the
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

learning. Consequently, researchers argue that potential value of synchronous online discussion
students in an online learning environment lack activity. Certain situations best lend themselves
opportunities to experience the benefits of both to synchronous communications, including group
structured dialogue and the sense of community meetings or activities requiring group consensus
that can be created in the more traditional on-site or simultaneous response. Synchronous discus-
classroom environment. Cook, (2000), Seabolt sions are especially useful for brainstorming or
and Arends, (2000), and Muirhead, (2001) support replicating the face to face situation, and tend to
this view that the interactivity of the traditional be more successful when utilised by small groups
classroom is a vital, yet missing part of web-based (Conrad & Donaldson, 2004). However, one of
instruction, and argue that online interaction is the problems of synchronous discussion boards or

85
<i>Developing and Utilizing E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

chat rooms is that they do not always allow time the class and can help establish a collaborative
for students to reflect and consider what they want learning environment which allows students to
to say, and consequently those students who are become acquainted with fellow classmates and
more reflective in their learning style often report tutors. Bourne et al. (1997) characterise asyn-
feeling left out. In contrast, Downing and Chim, chronous learning environments as capable of
(2003) suggest that asynchronous discussion providing anywhere and anytime learning, but
boards provide opportunities for a less pressured also identify a wide variety of issues which remain
learning environment where participants can to be resolved in relation to the effective use of
contribute to debates at a pace and time (within asynchronous discussion boards. These issues in-
reasonable parameters) which suits them. They clude the difficulties involved in encouraging early
argue that this constitutes part of the added-value engagement, the creation of a sense of a learning
which can be brought to the learning experience community, and the sustainability of interaction.
with appropriate use of an asynchronous discus- Previous studies which address these areas either
sion board tool, and demonstrates that learning focus on ways of reducing the potential social
outcomes should normally drive the use of tech- isolation of students through online exchange
nology rather than the other way around. (Lally and Barrett, 1999), explore issues related
Most providers of online courses utilise to emergent role development and group aware-
asynchronous discussion groups to generate ness (De Laat & Lally, 2004), or concentrate on
student-to-student and student-to-instructor in- the establishment and effectiveness of forums for
teraction (King, 2001; Clyde, 2004). In general, professional exchange and discussion amongst
tutors facilitate online learning via the posting teachers (Selwyn, 2000).
of open-ended, thought-provoking questions to
encourage student response and discussion. In Critical Factors in Creating
fact, a survey of online instructors conducted and Facilitating an Active
by Berge (1997) found that forty-one out of the Online Learning Community
forty-two respondents utilised discussion boards
as a teaching method. This asynchronous model The fostering of interaction is an intangible aspect
provides each learner with the time to adequately of an online learning community and according
respond and reply as appropriate. It provides to White (2004), group interaction is not always
some flexibility for the learner to respond at spontaneous. She suggests that while facilitators
his/her individual ‘peak time’, when he/she is cannot force the growth of online interaction,
at his/her best. Redmon and Burger (2004) see careful facilitation plays a major role in culti-
the asynchronous nature of discussion boards to vating student involvement. The importance of
be a distinct advantage offering the opportunity thoughtful and careful facilitation is also noted
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

for reflection before response. In addition, the by the Australian Flexible Learning Framework
flexibility of communication in asynchronous who state, ‘Effective facilitation (sometimes called
discussion can produce greater depth of learning moderation) is arguably the single biggest factor
than the synchronous environment alone (Con- in the success of an online community’ (Backroad
rad and Donaldson, 2004). Cox and Cox (2008) Connections, 2003, p.3). Unlike traditional face-
found evidence that interaction between students to-face learning environments, facilitators face
in an asynchronous learning environment leads unique communication challenges in establishing
to a community of learners. The utilisation of a an active online learning environment (Coghlan
discussion board provides students with the op- in Backroad Connections, 2002, p.2). In order to
portunity to share their thoughts with others in facilitate effective community building activities

86 E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
<i>Developing and Utilizing
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

which can help develop ‘positive social dynamic tutor and student-student interaction and the
and cognitive learning that is created through a content of interaction which is defined according
variety of communication’ (Woods and Ebersole, to its agreed purpose, using inter-rater reliability
2003), it is necessary to understand the stages in with three independent raters agreeing with each
which online communities develop, the behaviours other about coding decisions.
of students in the progression through these stages, Blended learning is generally defined as the
and the strategies that can be used to facilitate this combination of different methods, techniques and
progression (Salmon and Giles, 1997; Wegner, resources for effective learning. Valiathan (2002)
1998; Backroad Connections, 2003). describes this as a mix of various event-based
Despite the proliferation of debate, and with activities, including face-to-face classrooms,
the possible exception of Salmon’s work (2000), online learning, and self-paced learning. In this
there remains a lack of clear information on what context blended learning seeks an optimum blend
works in terms of setting up and sustaining a of self study, teacher-led events and group col-
successful online learning environment using the laboration which can be deployed in a blend of
discussion board tool. The study which forms the asynchronous or synchronous modes, depending
basis for this chapter begins to address this lack on the intended learning outcomes. The course
of prior research by analysing discussion board selected for this study is constructed of ten units
activity and content data for one semester, and of learning material with students recommended
consequently provides insight into the three issues to spend approximately ten hours studying each
raised by Bourne et al. (1997): unit. A large variety of materials including video
clips, audio clips, images, animations, url links,
• What works in terms of encouraging early power point presentations, and formative and
engagement with the asynchronous use of summative quizzes are utilised for teaching and
the discussion board? learning. A total of 7 hours and 40 minutes of
• How does the sense of a learning com- face-to-face contact is provided via five tutorials
munity develop, and how can this be which take place in weeks one, three, six, nine
encouraged? and twelve of a thirteen week semester. Each of
• What works in terms of sustaining online tutorials 1, 2, 3, and 5 are 1 hour and 20 minutes
interaction? in duration with tutorial 4 lasting two hours and
20 minutes to allow for students summative
The blended Learning Model small-group presentations. To allow students to
engage in discussion and collaboration with fellow
In order to identify the success factors in terms students and the course tutor, a discussion board
of establishing and cultivating an effective online is provided on the Blackboard learning platform
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

learning community, a detailed week by week for the online component of the course. The main
analysis of tutor and student discussion board objective here was to encourage participation in
activity, using the Blackboard learning platform, online discussion and foster the formation of an
is performed on one ‘blended learning’ course active virtual learning community.
throughout a single semester. Following the Most research on the application of discus-
framework of Garrison and Anderson (2003) who sion boards/forums in blended learning show that
identified the three critical components (students, active participation only occurs when the task is
teachers and content) in the formal educational a formal class requirement with contribution to-
context of an online discussion board, a case study wards grades (Alshare, Kwun, & Grandon, 2006).
design is utilised to explore the level of student- Gandell et al. (2000) categorise the extent of Web

87
<i>Developing and Utilizing E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

use according to the relevance and importance by a research assistant over a seventeen week pe-
of learning goals appropriately addressed, and riod, which began when the course was released
identify five categories that represent a continuum online, precisely one week before the start of the
of extent of use: study period, and extended three weeks beyond
the thirteen weeks of the course duration. This
• Minimal: Use of the Web that is neither was later analysed on a week by week basis to
relevant nor necessary to achieve any ex- highlight student discussion board activity, and
plicitly stated course learning goals and to relate this to tutor discussion board activity,
therefore has no impact on course-related and other prompts built into the asynchronous
learning. course materials. Content materials and assess-
• Supplemental: Use of the Web that is rel- ment tasks for the whole course (ten units) were
evant but not necessary to achieve a few made available from the first day of the semester
explicitly stated course goals and therefore so that students could learn at their own pace. Of
does not have much impact on related stu- particular interest were the categories of student-
dent learning. student interaction and student-tutor interaction
• Integral: Use of the Web that is relevant over the timescale identified above. Using these
and contributes to achieving some of the categories, data was analysed according to two
learning goals in the course, and would broad emergent themes for student-student and
have a fair impact on student learning. student-tutor interactions:
• Central: Use of the Web that is relevant
and necessary to achieve most learning • Student - Student / Student - Tutor
goals in the course, and would have a sub- Interaction for instrumental reasons.
stantial impact on student learning. This category includes all postings primar-
• Exclusive: Use of the Web that is relevant ily related to seeking and providing aca-
and necessary to achieve all learning goals demic assistance with course materials and
in the course, and would have a major im- contents or enquiries about assignments
pact on student learning. and the structure of the course.
• Student - Student / Student - Tutor
The extent of Web use for this blended learning Interaction for emotional / social rea-
course is in the exclusive category where the use sons. This category includes all postings
of the Web would have a major impact on student primarily related to seeking and giving
learning, given that the online materials (units) reassurance and assistance with social
are both relevant and necessary to achieve all the or emotional questions/issues related to
learning and assessment outcomes. studying the course.
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Case study background These themes emerged as a result of identify-

ing that the interactions on our discussion boards
The focus of this case study is the analysis of generally fell into two clear categories and could
discussion board activity in determining what usefully be classified accordingly. Postings were
works in terms of encouraging and sustaining either primarily instrumental or social/emotional
discussion board use in the development of an in terms of their purpose (we agreed that more than
effective online learning community. Data related 95% of the posting content had to fall within the
to asynchronous discussion board activity from category descriptions above). This classification
both tutor and students was captured and retained was surprisingly easy to achieve with no signifi-

88 E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
<i>Developing and Utilizing
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

cant disagreements amongst the three independent ObsERVATIONs

raters, or subsequent blind rating by the author.
Interestingly, but beyond the scope of this paper Data was analysed over the seventeen week period
to consider further, these categories also appear identified below in Figure 1 which shows a line
in research into coping strategies conducted by graph of student and tutor discussion board activ-
Carver, Scheier and Weintraub (1989). ity. The course begins in week 1 and ends in week
First year associate degree programme fresh- thirteen and the overall number of postings can
men enrolled in a blended learning applied psy- be seen in the table underneath the graph. Whilst
chology course at a university in Hong Kong form the total for each individual week is summed, a
the sample in this study. All 32 students enrolled line graph is useful here to demonstrate the overall
in this ‘Practical Psychology for Everyday Life’ flow of discussion board postings and highlights
course during Semester A (September to De- three emergent phases (weeks 0 to 3, 4 to 9, and
cember) volunteered retrospectively (they were 10 to 16) marked with the dotted lines below.
approached after the semester was completed) Data was then analysed cumulatively for the
to participate in this study. All participants were full seventeen week period according to the cod-
of similar academic background evidenced by ing categories identified for this case study. Cross-
their successful application to study applied tabulations of student-student and student-tutor
psychology at associate degree level. In week interaction for instrumental and social reasons
17, in-depth interviews with ten participants (a were presented in Table 1 (weeks 0 to 16), Table
convenience sample) were conducted by an in- 2(a) (weeks 0 to 3), Table 2(b) (weeks 4 to 9), and
dependent research assistant not involved in the Table 2(c) (weeks 10 to 16) below following in-
course teaching. The sole tutor for this course dependent rating and categorising by three raters.
was the first author of this chapter, a chartered The graph and table in Figure 1 show the
psychologist and lecturer with some 27 years overall pattern of postings between tutor and
experience as an educator. students over the seventeen week period of this
study. The most striking pattern is the degree of

Figure 1. Table and graph to show overall distribution of discussion board postings from week 0 to week 16
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

89
<i>Developing and Utilizing E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

Table 1. Table summarising student-student and Table 2(a). Table summarising student-student
student-tutor postings for instrumental and social and student-tutor postings for instrumental and
reasons (weeks 0 to 16). social reasons (weeks 0 to 3).

Instrumental Social Total Instrumental Social Total

Student-student 269 564 833 Student-student 87 295 382
interaction interaction
Student-tutor in- 489 434 923 Student-tutor in- 144 155 299
teraction teraction
Total 758 998 1756 Total 231 450 681

Table 2(b). Table summarising student-student Table 2(c). Table summarising student-student
and student-tutor postings for instrumental and and student-tutor postings for instrumental and
social reasons (weeks 4 to 9). social reasons (weeks 10 to 16).

Instrumental Social Total Instrumental Social Total

Student-student 116 176 292 Student-student 66 93 159
interaction interaction
Student-tutor in- 226 179 405 Student-tutor in- 119 100 219
teraction teraction
Total 342 355 697 Total 185 193 378

parallelism between the two lines, with an excep- in terms of posting activity also identified in
tion around week 8 which might be explained by Tables 1 and 2, and the summary graph in Figure
the type and timing of the assessment tasks for 2, which appear to be largely driven by the timing
this course. Assessment was divided into three and nature of the formative and particularly the
broad components. The first component was summative assessment tasks identified above.
participation, the extent to which the student
engages with the course, which spanned the dura- Phase One: Weeks 0 to 3 (The
tion of the course (13 weeks) and was worth 20% socially Formative Phase)
of the total marks. 10% of this mark was award-
ed for in-class participation assessed over the five The tutor adopted a nurturing and supportive role
tutorials, and 10% was awarded for online discus- during the first three weeks of the course, which
sion board participation. This assessment com- can be operationally defined as becoming heavily
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ponent provides additional motivation for students engaged (in terms of providing an encouraging
to engage in both classroom and online activities. and non-critical response) with students via the
The second assessment component required stu- online discussion board, and ensuring that most
dents to make a short presentation on a topic in tutor postings contained encouraging and sup-
the tutorial which took place in week 9 (40%), portive comment. This was intended to create a
and the third assessment component involved culture of high trust or what Biggs, (1999) calls
submission of a 2000 word written paper (40%) an appropriate ‘climate for learning’. Evidence
by week 15. of this can be seen in the tutor postings data in
The next most notable feature of the data in Tables 1 and 2. From week four the intention is
Figure 1 is the emergence of three distinct phases for the tutor to gradually withdraw, increasingly

90 E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
<i>Developing and Utilizing
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

Figure 2. Graph summarising student-student and student-tutor postings for instrumental and social
reasons over the three identified phases (weeks 0 to 16)

responding by acknowledging good questions and categories. The next highest categories are student-
reflecting these back to the online student group tutor interaction for social reasons followed by
to encourage them to engage in metacognitive student-tutor interaction for instrumental reasons.
activity (Downing & Shin, 2006; Downing et al., Analysis of the content of the latter category show
2009), and to stimulate further independent discus- most postings to be related to practical course
sion and peer learning activity over the remaining arrangements, tutorials and assignments. The
ten weeks of the course. A formative assessment final category was student-student interaction
task, due in week 3, was designed to encourage for instrumental reasons suggesting perhaps that
early engagement with the asynchronous use of students have not yet sufficiently developed the
the discussion board, and to attempt to initiate social relationships with their peers necessary
the beginnings of a sense of a supportive online for collaborative learning. A review of student
learning community. This formative assignment feedback for this semester confirms this assertion
required each student to contact a fellow student with most student comments identifying the need
and post a short introduction to that individual on to build some sort of relationships between each
the discussion board. The number and nature of other and the tutor at this early stage. Almost all
student postings during the first three weeks of the students identified the early online exercise of
course demonstrates that this was an effective way contacting and introducing a fellow as very effec-
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

of encouraging early engagement with both the tive in terms of creating a sense of belonging to
discussion board environment and each other. In a group and only one student commented that he
fact many of the students, who had been in online found it ‘annoying’. This finding confirms that of
contact during this exercise, subsequently chose Brown (2001) who identifies the first stage of her
to sit together in classroom sessions from tutorial three stage model as being about making friends
three until the end of the course. online with whom students felt comfortable com-
Phase one is characterised by interaction which municating. This is very similar to what happens
is largely social in nature, with student-student in traditional classrooms where the creation of a
interaction for social reasons accounting for safe and supportive learning environment provides
significantly more postings than the other three an effective context for subsequent learning ac-

91
<i>Developing and Utilizing E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

tivity. The social role of the tutor is more clearly action for instrumental reasons but this remains
defined at this stage than the relationships between the lowest category overall. However, contrary
students, and this accounts for the significantly to phase one where social interactions were
higher levels of student-tutor interaction in the paramount, this period shows a well balanced
social category during this socially formative and mix of both social and instrumental interaction
somewhat exploratory stage. By week three, all (see Table 2(b)). The increase in the student-tutor
students said that they felt more comfortable in interaction for instrumental reasons is assignment
the online discussion board environment and this driven again, this time by the requirement to pro-
is confirmed by a notable rise in giving support duce a group summative assignment in the form
to their colleagues for instrumental reasons. This of a presentation on a selected topic in week 9.
is perhaps a form of social learning through mod- Surprisingly, in individual follow-up interviews
elling the tutors online social/emotional support with ten of the student participants, seven stated
behaviours in the manner described by Bandura that they began to feel a sense of competition
(1965), and certainly set the scene for a warm and with other groups during this phase and therefore
supportive learning environment both online and felt more ‘comfortable’ asking the tutor for help
in the tutorials. In fact the importance of develop- with instrumental matters than their peers/com-
ing a sense of trust in the learning environment petitors. All ten interviewees said that they used
(McGregor, 1967; Biggs, 1999) is identified as private email, rather than the discussion board,
being an even more critical success factor in to communicate with their fellow presentation
online learning and working environments by group members during this phase. Most gave
Grundy (2002). This probably because the lack the reason that they did not want to give away
of intensive early face-to-face contact might be any ‘secrets’ about their presentation to the other
perceived by some students as quite threatening groups. They also admitted being ‘careful’ about
so reassurance and positive reinforcement from how they phrased discussion board requests to
tutor and peers is even more critical. the tutor for instrumental help during this phase
The socially formative assessment task to be so as not to give their ‘presentation plans to other
posted on the discussion board by week three groups’, and frustrated that the tutor refused to
undoubtedly contributed to student-student social answer queries via email. The tutor refused to
interaction during this phase, and substantially as- answer individual email queries, except of a pri-
sisted in the early stages of relationship building vate/personal nature throughout the course, on the
almost certainly leading to more student-student basis that this might encourage more sharing and
instrumental interaction in phase two, and setting collaborative learning online. The gradual reduc-
the scene for a generally high level of overall tion in student-student interaction for instrumental
discussion board activity. reasons (see Figure 1) between week 4 and 9 is
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

largely a result of students experiencing a sense

Phase Two: Weeks 4 to 9 (The of inter-group competition given that the presenta-
socially Instrumental Phase) tion assignment due in week 9 was summative in
nature and carried a substantial proportion (40%)
Brown (2001) typifies the second stage as one of the overall marks for the course. Whilst the
of community conferment or acceptance, occur- overall number of postings during this period is
ring when students are part of a long, thoughtful, up very slightly on phase one, the distribution of
threaded discussion on a subject of importance. postings according to the four categories is very
The interactions between weeks 4 and 9 inclusive different and suggests that Brown’s (2001) second
demonstrate an increase in student-student inter- stage of community conferment or acceptance is

92 E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
<i>Developing and Utilizing
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

compromised when students perceive they are in more benefits than continuing to engage in the
competition. In fact the highest number of postings online discussion board. However, student-tutor
during this phase was student-tutor interaction for interaction remains at phase one levels with stu-
instrumental reasons (see Figure 2) which is more dents reporting that maintaining tutor contact to the
consistent with Yuselturk and Top’s (2006) ‘task bitter end was very important and ‘might influence
oriented area’ classification where instrumental their grade positively’. When asked at interview
questions take priority over social interaction. about this, most students said they were grateful
Nonetheless, social interaction remained very to the tutor for support during the course, and still
slightly above instrumental interaction overall had some questions to ask in relation to the final
providing evidence that some sense of community assignment so that is why they had more contact
prevailed during this phase. with the tutor than their peers at this stage of the
course. However, when pressed four of the students
Phase Three: Weeks 10 to 16 admitted they thought it ‘might influence their final
(The Withdrawal Phase) assignment grade’. All but one student said they
felt a sense of friendship or community with their
In this phase, both student-student and student- fellow students but that this was tempered by the
tutor interaction begins to drop away considerably, need to get a good individual grade in their final
but a well-balanced mix of social and instrumental assignment. All ten of the interviewed students
postings is maintained. The overall number of said they would attempt to keep in social contact
postings during this phase is 378, compared with with at least one of their peers after the course
697 in phase two, demonstrating that some level was complete, which suggests some adherence
of disengagement from the discussion board is to Brown’s (2001) third stage of camaraderie,
taking place. At this stage of the course students but one which is much more complex and multi-
should have completed most of the online course dimensional than she suggests.
material and be preparing for their individual sum-
mative written assignment (40%) due in week 15.
All ten students in the individual follow-up inter- CONCLUsION
views reported that they ‘considerably reduced’
the frequency of logging on to the online course Some insights have been gained from this case
at this stage, citing final assignment production study into the questions posed by Bourne et al.
pressure. This general disengagement with the (1997) in terms of what works in facilitating an
online learning materials clearly led to a general online discussion board, and some further ques-
reduction in discussion board use because students tions are raised about the complexity of discussion
were less likely to be logging into the course to board interaction over the duration of a semester-
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

study course materials. This assertion was borne long course.

out by course login statistics which also showed Question 1 asked what works in terms of
a steady downward trend after week ten which encouraging early engagement with the asyn-
largely paralleled the reduction in discussion board chronous use of the discussion board. There is
activity. The follow-up interviews also revealed little doubt from the level of online activity and
that once again many students (eight out of the ten interaction identified in Figure 1 and Table 1, that
interviewed) felt a keen sense of competition with early engagement with an asynchronous discus-
their peers (this time on an individual basis) and sion board can be greatly facilitated by the design
preferred to just concentrate on their final written of a simple yet appropriate socially formative as-
assignment believing that this would bring them signment. By asking students to contact each other

93
<i>Developing and Utilizing E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

and introduce a fellow student using the discussion the fact that the tutor for this course made it
board medium, a great deal of early interaction was very clear from the outset that assessment was
facilitated. In phase one, there were a total of 681 criterion, rather than norm-referenced, and that
postings from 32 students (Table 2(a)) and these it was therefore possible for every student to be
included both student-student and student-tutor graded ‘A’, there was nonetheless a clear forma-
interaction with the emphasis (almost twice as tion of separate presentation working groups, and
many) being in terms of social interaction. These a subsequent reluctance to share too much online
high levels of interaction and support created a with non-group members. In retrospect, this would
sense of shared purpose and group cohesion and have been an appropriate time to create separate
effectively supported students to build online working groups within the discussion board, rather
relationships and establish their online identity. than continue with one group which all students
In terms of Brown’s (2001) first stage of ‘making had access to. This would have positively influ-
friends online with whom students felt comfort- enced the continuation of a sense of a supportive
able communicating’, this approach is successful. learning community established in phase one.
However, the established role of the tutor is clearly This finding is broadly in agreement with that of
important in facilitating a supportive learning Nicol et al. (2003) who point out that the social
environment in the early weeks of establishing an context of online learning is qualitatively differ-
online sense of community. According to Salmon ent from more traditional modes and that both
(2000) the role of the facilitator during this stage practitioners and researchers need to recognise
is to provide support and guidance to students in this complexity. In this case study, the timing and
navigating their way through the content as they handling of the group summative assessment task
learn to contribute (p. 4). The high level of tutor clearly interfered with the continued establishment
involvement in this phase appeared to be success- of a sense of a supportive and nurturing online
ful in encouraging active participation from the learning community, and that if we are to take full
students. This provides further support for previ- advantage of the power of online technologies, we
ous research which indicates that the tutor must must develop our understanding of their impact
provide regular and timely feedback to students upon the social context for online learning.
in order for participants to value the discussion Question 3 asked what works in terms of sus-
process (Woods and Ebersole, 2003; Pena-Shaff, taining online interaction and this is a question
Altman & Stephenson, 2005; 425). which requires some analysis. The results from
Question 2 asked how does the sense of a this study, and others (Brown, 2001; Yuselturk
learning community develop, and how can this be and Top, 2006; Hwang and Wang, 2004) suggest
encouraged. This is the most problematic ques- that online discussion activity might go through
tion to be answered because, whilst it might be a series of stages or phases, which on the surface
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

possible to classify postings as primarily social might not be too dissimilar to what happens in
or instrumental in nature, students will also take classroom based learning. In other words, there
into account many other factors before deciding is a socially active phase, an instrumental phase
when and what to post. This is evidenced by the and then a gradual, and perhaps natural, process
data in phase two, and the comments from students of disengagement. The current study demonstrates
in the follow-up interviews, which demonstrate that students take a pragmatic approach to this
that students are often influenced by what they process, disengaging when they feel they have
perceive, are pragmatic considerations about the all the information they need to complete the
competition they are involved in when required summative assessment tasks they are set. To that
to complete summative assignments. Despite extent it is not effective or worthwhile to attempt

94 E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
<i>Developing and Utilizing
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

to sustain online interaction for the duration of the REFERENCEs

whole course. Provided students have engaged in
reflective online discussion activity early on, and Alshare, K., Kwun, O., & Grandon, E. E. (2006).
completed the online course materials, it might be Determinants of instructors’ intentions to teach
counter productive to try to sustain involvement online courses: A cross-cultural perspective. Jour-
through to the end of the course. We should inter- nal of Computer Information Systems, 46, 87–95.
pret sustaining online interaction in a way which Backroad Connections Pty Ltd. (2003) What are
adds the provision: ‘as far as there is educational the conditions for and characteristics of effective
value in so doing’. If the question is interpreted online learning communities? Australian flexible
in this way, educators are provided with much learning framework: Quick guide series (Austra-
more scope in terms of how they decide to use, lian national Training Authority). Available online
and how they evaluate the success or failure of at: http://www.flexiblelearning.net.au (accessed
online discussion forums. 3 April 2008).
Vygotsky (1978) pointed out that conceptual
learning was a collaborative effort which required Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of model’s rein-
supportive dialogue so it is reasonable to assume forcement contingencies on the acquisition of
that online discussion has the potential to enhance imitative responses. Journal of Personality and
both collaboration and concept development. Social Psychology, 1, 589–595. doi:10.1037/
However, some researchers take the view that h0022070
true social interaction leading to cognitive growth
Berge, Z. L. (1997). Characteristics of online
in an online context is rare (Son, 2002; Meyer,
teaching in post-secondary, formal education.
2003; Wickstrom, 2003) whereas others (Poole,
Educational Technology, 37(3), 35–47.
2000; Grady, 2003; Schallert, Reed and D-Team,
2003) demonstrate that significant social interac- Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning
tion leading to effective knowledge construction in university. London: The Society for Research
does take place in online discussion forums. As into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Kay (2006) points out a resolution to this debate
Boaz, M., Elliott, B., Foshee, D., Hardy, D.,
lies in both the user acceptance of the medium
Jarmon, C., & Olcott, D. (1999). Teaching at a
and the amount of structure used to guide the
distance: A handbook for instructors. Mission
online discussion board. The current study sug-
Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Com-
gests that the former task is perhaps more easily
munity College.
achieved than the latter, and that more research is
needed into ‘what works’ in terms of engaging and Boettcher, J. (1999). Another look at the tower of
sustaining online learning communities that are WWWebble. Syllabus Magazine, 13(3), 50–52.
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

truly collaborative and supportive. In summary,

Bourne, J. R., McMaster, E., Reiger, J., & Camp-
the development of effective online learning is
bell, J. O. (1997). Paradigms for on-line learning:
a complex process and many issues remain to
A case study in the design and implementation of
be solved. Attention must be given to the iden-
an asynchronous learning networks (ALN) course.
tification of a properly constructed pedagogical
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
structure which can motivate learner participation
1(2), 38–56.
and generate interest towards learning.
Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of community
building in distance learning classes. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 18–35.

95
<i>Developing and Utilizing E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, Downing, K., Kwong, T., Chan, S., Lam, I., &
J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A Downing, W. K. (2009). Problem-based learning
theoretically based approach. Journal of Per- and the development of metacognition. Higher
sonality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–283. Education, 57(5), 609–621. doi:10.1007/s10734-
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267 008-9165-x
Chou, C. C. (2001). Formative evaluation of Downing, K. J. a&Chim, T.M. (2003) Learning
synchronous CMC systems for a learner-centered style, student satisfaction and blended learning.
online course. Journal of Interactive Learning In G. Richards (Ed) Proceedings of World Con-
Research, 12(2/3), 170–188. ference on e-learning in corporate, government,
healthcare, and higher education 2003, Phoenix,
Clyde, L. A. (2004). Digital learning objects.
AZ, USA, 1552-1553.
Teacher Librarian, 31(4), 55–57.
Downing, K. J., & Chim, T. M. (2004a) What are
Conrad, R., & Donaldson, J. A. (2004). Engaging
the characteristics of effective online students?
the online learner: Activities and resources for
Fifteenth International Conference on College
creative instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Teaching and Learning, Jacksonville, Fl., U.S.A.
Cook, K. (2000). Computer conferencing really 29th March-2nd April 2004.
makes the Web interactive. In Leach, E. J. (Ed.), A
Downing, K. J., & Chim, T. M. (2004b). Reflectors
collection of practices from the league’s conference
as online extraverts. Educational Studies, 30(3),
on information technology. Mission Viejo, CA:
265–276. doi:10.1080/0305569042000224215
League for Innovation in the Community College.
Downing, K. J., & Shin, K. (2006) Developing
Cox, B., & Cox, B. (2008). Developing interper-
metacognition with LASSI online.International
sonal and group dynamics through asynchronous
Conference of the Asia-Pacific Educational
threaded discussions: The use of discussion board
Research Association, Hong Kong Institute of
in collaborative learning. Education, 128(4),
Education, Hong Kong, November 2006.
553–565.
Gandell, T., Weston, C., Finkelstein, A., & Weiner,
De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2004). It’s not so easy: Re-
L. (2000). Appropriate use of the web in teaching
searching the complexity of emergent participant
higher education. In Mann, B. L. (Ed.), Perspec-
roles and awareness in asynchronous networked
tives in web course management (pp. 61–68).
learning discussions. Journal of Computer As-
Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press.
sisted Learning, 20, 165–171. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2004.00085.x Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning
in the 21st century: A framework for research and
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Downing, K. (2001). Information Technology,

practice. London, Routledge Falmer.
education, and health care: Constructivism in the
21st century. Educational Studies, 2(3), 229–235. Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to struc-
doi:10.1080/03055690120076510 ture online discussions for meaningful discourse:
A case study. British Journal of Educational
Downing, K., Ho, R., Shin, K., Vrijmoed, L., &
Technology, 36(1), 5–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
Wong, E. (2007). Metacognitive Development
8535.2005.00434.x
and Moving Away. Educational Studies, 33(1),
1–13. doi:10.1080/03055690600850347

96 E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
<i>Developing and Utilizing
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

Grady, D. B. (2003). Mapping online discussions McNaught, C., & Lam, P. (2005). Building an
with lexical scores. Journal of Interactive Learn- evaluation culture and evidence base for e-learning
ing, 14(2), 209–229. in three Hong Kong universities. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 36(4), 599–614.
Grundy, J. (2002). Flexible learning and the
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00538.x
flexible worker. British Telecom White Paper,
December 2002, BT, London. Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded
discussions: The role of time and higher order
Henri, F., & Pudelko, B. (2003). Understanding and
thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
analysing activity and learning in virtual communi-
Networks, 7(3), 55–65.
ties. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19,
474–487. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00051.x Muirhead, B. (2001) Enhancing social interac-
tion in computer-mediated distance education,
Hron, A., & Friedrich, H. F. (2003). A review
United States Distance Learning Association Ed
of web-based collaborative learning: factors
at a Distance Magazine and Ed Journal 15(40).
beyond technology. Journal of Computer As-
Available online at: www.usdla.org/html/journal/
sisted Learning, 19, 70–79. doi:10.1046/j.0266-
APR01_Issue/article02.html (accessed 3 April
4909.2002.00007.x
2007).
Hwang, W. Y., & Wang, C. Y. (2004). A study
Nash, S. S. (2004) New quality benchmarks for
of learning time patterns in asynchronous learn-
online courses: Meshing technology and con-
ing environments. Journal of Computer As-
ceptual underpinning, Selected Papers from the
sisted Learning, 20, 292–304. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
Fifteenth International Conference on College
2729.2004.00088.x
Teaching and Learning. Jacksonville, Fl., U.S.A.
Kay, R. H. (2006). Developing a comprehen- 29th March-2nd April 2004, 195-222.
sive metric for assessing discussion board
Nicol, D. J., Minty, I., & Sinclair, C. (2003). The
effectiveness. British Journal of Educational
social dimensions of online learning. Innovations
Technology, 37(5), 761–783. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
in Education and Teaching International, 40(3),
8535.2006.00560.x
270–280. doi:10.1080/1470329032000103807
King, K. (2001). Educators revitalize the class-
Pena-Shaff, J., Altman, W., & Stephenson, H.
room “bulletin board:” a case study of the influence
(2005). Asynchronous online discussions as a
of online dialog on face-to-face classes from an
tool for learning: Students’ attitudes, expectations,
adult learning perspective. Journal of Research
and perceptions. Journal of Interactive Learning
and Computing in Education, 33(4), 337–354.
Research, 16(4), 409–430.
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Lally, V., & Barrett, E. (1999). Building a learn-

Poole, D. M. (2000). Student participation in a
ing community on-line: Towards socio-academic
discussion oriented online course: a case study.
interaction. Research Papers in Education, 14(2),
Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
147–163. doi:10.1080/0267152990140205
33(2), 162–177.
McGregor, D. (1967). The professional manager.
Redmon, R. J., & Burger, M. (2004). Web CT Dis-
New York: McGraw-Hill.
cussion Forums: Asynchronous Group Reflection
of the Student Teaching Experience. Curriculum
and Teaching Dialogue, 6(2), 157–166.

97
<i>Developing and Utilizing E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

Robertson, T. J., & Klotz, J. (2004) How can in- Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice:
structors and administrators fill the missing link Learning as a social system. Available online at:
in online instruction, Online Journal of Distance http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/
Learning Administration, 5(4). Available online at: cop (accessed 12 April 2007).
http://www.westga.edu/~dist ance/ojdl a/winter54
White, N. (2004). Facilitating and hosting a vir-
/roberson54.htm (accessed 3 April 2007).
tual community. Available online at: http://www.
Salmon, G. (2000). eModerating: The key to fullcirc.com/community/definingcommunity.htm
teaching and learning online (London, Routledge (accessed 12 April 2008).
Falmer).
Wickstrom, C. D. (2003). A funny thing happened
Salmon, G. K., & Giles, K. (1997). Moderating on the way to the forum. Journal of Adolescent
online, Online Education Conference, Berlin. & Adult Literacy, 46(5), 414–423.
Available online at: http://www.emoderators.
Woods, R., & Ebersole, S. (2003). Becoming a
com/moderators/gilly/MOD.html (accessed 12
“communal architect” in the online classroom –
April 2007).
Integrating cognitive and affective learning for
Schallert, D.L., & Reed, J.H., & D-Team, T. maximum effect in web-based learning. Online
(2003). Intellectual, motivational, textual, and Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
cultural considerations in teaching and learning 6(1). Valiathan, P. (2006). Blended learning mod-
with computer-mediated discussion. Journal of els. Available online at: http://www.learningcir-
Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), cuits.org/2002/aug2002/valiathan.html (accessed
103–118. 3 April 2007).
Seabolt, B., & Arends, B. (2000). Remain- Yuselturk, E., & Top, E. (2006). Reconsidering
ing real in a virtual world. Available on- online course discussions: A case study. Journal of
line at: http://www.web ct.com/service/ Educational Technology Systems, 34(3), 341–367.
viewcontentframe?contentID=2385 doi:10.2190/6GQ8-P7TX-VGMR-4NR4
857&pageName=index.html (accessed 3 April
2007).
Selwyn, N. (2000). Creating a ‘connected’ com- KEY TERMs AND DEFINITIONs
munity? Teachers use of an electronic discussion
group. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 750–778. Asynchronous Discussion Boards: An online
doi:10.1111/0161-4681.00076 learning tool or approach which allows anytime,
anywhere access to ongoing discussions not nec-
Son, J. (2002). Online discussion in a CALL
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

essarily in real time.

course for distance language teachers. CALICO Blended Learning: A continuum of a blend
Journal, 20(1), 127–144. or mix of online and face-to-face learning.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The Extravert: A relatively cortically under-
development of higher psychological processes. aroused individual who seeks stimulation from
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. interaction with others to raise levels of cortical
arousal to optimal levels.
Instrumental Reasons: Engaging in an activ-
ity in order to achieve a practical outcome.

98 E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
<i>Developing and Utilizing
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.
 Patterns of Interaction in Online Learning

Introvert: A relatively cortically over-aroused Social Reasons: Engaging in an activity in

individual who avoids stimulation from interaction order to achieve a social or emotional outcome.
with others to lower levels of cortical arousal to Synchronous Discussion Boards: An online
optimal levels. learning tool or approach in which ‘live’ learning
Metacognition: Thinking about thinking takes place because student-student and student-
or engaging in reflection about thinking (often tutor interactions occur in real time.
one’s own).
Copyright © 2010. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

99
<i>Developing and Utilizing E-Learning Applications</i>, edited by Fotis Lazarinis, et al., IGI Global, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ouhk-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3310781.
Created from ouhk-ebooks on 2019-12-06 04:55:21.