Reports of statistical metrics from online discussion forums, such as number of posts, are important and have interesting indications. Nevertheless, they do not show how the participants interact, and do not shed light on the process of knowledge construction, and if and how it takes place. The literature reveals the importance of evaluation of the online discussion from different perspectives in addition to simple statistics. The quality of the discussion is considered a powerful tool to understand online learning (Gunawardena et al., 1997).
Spatariu and his colleagues (2004p. 398) reviewed the literature on the methodological approaches utilized in the analysis of online discussions. In the studies they reviewed, the evaluation was classified according to the construct(s) that are supposedly being measured. Four general categories are commonly seen: (a) levels of disagreement, (b) argument structure analysis, (c) levels of interaction, and (d) content analysis. The last is the methodology applied in this study, because the study focuses on knowledge construction, and so content analysis provides important insights. The assumption behind content analysis is that analysis of language in use can reveal meanings, understandings, and ways of seeing the world (Wilkinson and Birmingham, 2003).
The Interaction Analysis Model (IAM) developed by Gunawardena et al. (1997) is one of the most commonly used content analysis models (Stephen Corich, 2004). IAM provided an appropriate model for evaluating students’ knowledge construction in this study. This decision was based on two important aspects. Firstly, the theoretical assumptions of this model are based on the social constructivist approach I have adopted as my theoretical framework. Secondly, the model provides a reliable framework for identifying the interactive learning and knowledge construction processes (more details of reliability and validity in the methodology chapter) (Zheng and Spires, 2012).
3.2.1. Development of IAM
In 1995, Gunawardena and her colleagues (1997) developed an asynchronous online discussion forum for a week. The main goal of the discussion forum was to demonstrate and develop effective learning activities that support quality virtual conferences. The first question which arose after the conference was “how to assess the quality of the interaction and the quality of the learning experience in a computer-mediated conferencing environment” (p.398).
Primarily, Gunawardena et al. (1997) reviewed existing literature to adopt an appropriate analysis model. The researchers considered the evaluation models reviewed by Mason (1992), in which Mason notes that most research ends with quantitative analyses based on number of messages sent, numbers of replies, and by whom, or on frequency of logons. Gunawardena and colleagues also noted that many studies used surveys, interviews, and statistical measurements to evaluate online discussion, but these do not consider the quality of learning taking place. These researchers also reviewed a number of models evaluating the quality of an online discussion. They reviewed Hiltz’s work (1990) (cited in Gunawardena et al., 1997), which describes analysis of computer conferences along four dimensions: characteristics inherent to the technology; social and psychological characteristics of users; characteristics of groups adopting the technology; and interaction of the preceding factors. The researchers also examined Levin, Kim, and Riel’s work (1990) (cited in Gunawardena et al., 1997), which analyses the structure and content of interactions by the formation of "message maps" that show the interrelationships among the messages submitted to an online discussion in diagrams. In addition, they reviewed Henri’s model (1992), which evaluated online discussion content related to four broad categories; the social and interactive dimensions and cognitive and metacognitive skills. Gunawardena et al. (1997) also considered the work of Newman, Webb, and Cochrane (1995), who applied Henri’s and Garrison's models (1992) to develop a content analysis module to evaluate critical thinking in face-to-face and computer-supported group learning. Newman and colleagues suggested that the five stages of Garrison‘s critical thinking relate to the cognitive skills dimension of Henri‘s model.
Gunawardena et al. (1997), after evaluation of the above mentioned models, concluded that “they are not very specific on how to evaluate the process of knowledge construction that occurs through social negotiation in computer mediated-communication” (P. 402). They criticised that the studies were based on teacher-centred instructional paradigms. During coding, Gunawardena et al. found it difficult to distinguish between the cognitive and the metacognitive dimensions. Finally, In a further study Gunawardena et al (2000) found that the studies focused on the mechanistic relationship between the responses rather than the learning experience as a whole (Gunawardena et al., 2000).
After identifying the shortcomings of the existing interaction analysis models, Gunawardena et al. (1997) applied a grounded theory approach to develop their own model, the IAM. The researchers analysed the entire transcript (of one week of online debate) for four elements: 1) the type of cognitive activity performed (questioning, clarifying, negotiating, synthesizing, etc.), 2) the types of arguments advanced, 3) the resources used in negotiating new meanings, such as reports of personal experience and literature citations, and 4) evidence of changes of personal constructions of knowledge as a result of interactions. Based upon these elements, the researchers outlined the process of negotiation which appears to take place in the co-construction of knowledge. This process comprises five phases: 1) sharing/comparing, 2) dissonance, 3) negotiation/co-construction, 4) testing tentative constructions and 5) statement/application of newly constructed knowledge. Each phase encompasses three, four, or five indicators (operations). Gunawardena et al. theorize that the active construction of knowledge moves through these phases; however, not every instance of socially constructed knowledge progresses linearly through each consecutive phase (Kanuka and Anderson, 2007). Table (1) shows the description of each phase, retrieved from Kanuka and Anderson (2007) ; the whole model, including the indicators/operations, is included at the end of the document.
Table 5: Phase of IAM retrieved from (Kanuka and Anderson, 2007)
Phase Explanation
Phase I:
Sharing/comparing of information
In everyday transactions, this might take the form of ordinary observations, statements of problems, or questions.
Phase II:
Discovery/exploration of dissonance/inconsistency among the ideas
This is defined as an inconsistency between a new observation and the learner’s existing framework of knowledge and thinking skills.
Phase III:
Negotiation of meaning and/or co-construction of knowledge.
This phase includes negotiation or clarification of the meaning of terms, identification of areas of agreement, and proposal of a compromise or co-construction.
Phase IV:
Testing tentative constructions.
Events that occur in this phase include testing against an existing cognitive schema, personal experience, formal data experimentation or contradictory information from the literature
Phase V:
Agreement statement(s)/ applications of newly constructed meaning
This phase encompasses summarizing agreement(s) and metacognitive statements that illustrate new knowledge construction and application
In summary, social constructivism is used as the framework for this study. According to this theory, the learning process occurs both individually and collaboratively, mediated by group interaction/discussion. Group co- construction of knowledge is evaluated through content analysis of the students’ online interaction (posts) by using IAM, which was developed based on social constructivist theory. Individual learning (construction of knowledge) is investigated by looking at the students’ marks, which is not used in this study because of validity and reliability issues that will be explained later. Another aspect of the theory is the types of learning concepts, spontaneous and scientific: the spontaneous is explored through participants’ perceptions, while scientific learning will be investigated through objective evaluation of the discussion forums. After an understanding of the theoretical framework for the study is reached, and particularly of how this framework supports the online discussion forums as the focus of the study, attention can be turned toward factors that could affect the sustainability of the interaction/educational experience.