在线讨论还是真实对话?设计如何影响两种不同类型在线论坛的讨论

IF 6.7 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Glenn G. Smith, Michael B. Sherry
{"title":"在线讨论还是真实对话?设计如何影响两种不同类型在线论坛的讨论","authors":"Glenn G. Smith, Michael B. Sherry","doi":"10.1111/bjet.13491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<jats:label/>Authentic dialogue demands that we respond, interpret and sometimes disagree with others' ideas—a key component of participation in a democratic society. Yet the sharing and uptake of different ideas can be hampered by traditional online platforms which divide students into isolated threads. To tackle this issue, we introduce two novel online forums designed to foster engagement and idea exchange: a linear chat, akin to SMS, and a collaborative writing forum we call CREW. Seventy‐three graduate students, divided into 18 small groups, tested these forums. We used discourse analysis to measure idea uptake and other dialogic features. From this analysis, seven discussions emerged as particularly interactive and engaging, exhibiting a high uptake‐to‐turn ratio. We noticed linear chat encouraged a high proportion of uptake, but also produced ‘tangles’—breaks in related post chains. CREW discussions sparked similar engagement but resolved most tangles since they required a collaborative written response. This study offers fresh insights in both research and teaching for improving online discussions.<jats:label/><jats:boxed-text content-type=\"box\" position=\"anchor\"><jats:caption>Practitioner notes</jats:caption>What is already known about this topic <jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>A vital practice for scholarly dialogue and democratic discourse is uptake: building on what others have written or said.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Instead of encouraging uptake of others' words and ideas, typical online discussions in Learning Management Systems (LMSs) can inadvertently isolate students in separate threads.</jats:list-item> </jats:list>What this paper adds <jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>We introduce and analyse two new, innovative types of online discussions that may encourage more uptake of others' words and ideas.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>To eliminate isolation and encourage uptake, a linear chat forum makes all posts visible, but may produce interruptions, or ‘tangles’.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>A forum that includes collaborative responsive writing requires participants to converge on a collective response, encouraging dialogue and overcoming tangles.</jats:list-item> </jats:list>Implications for practice/policy <jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>Teachers and other stakeholders might consider how discussion forum designs in LMSs can support or limit authentic dialogue.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Practitioners might consider how to incorporate deliberation about a shared focus into online discussions.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Instructors might avoid tangles by aligning assignment purposes with dialogic principles: posing authentic questions that invite multiple interpretations and require uptake of others' responses.</jats:list-item> </jats:list></jats:boxed-text>","PeriodicalId":48315,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Educational Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Online discussion or authentic dialogue? How design affects discussions in two alternative types of online forums\",\"authors\":\"Glenn G. Smith, Michael B. Sherry\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjet.13491\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<jats:label/>Authentic dialogue demands that we respond, interpret and sometimes disagree with others' ideas—a key component of participation in a democratic society. Yet the sharing and uptake of different ideas can be hampered by traditional online platforms which divide students into isolated threads. To tackle this issue, we introduce two novel online forums designed to foster engagement and idea exchange: a linear chat, akin to SMS, and a collaborative writing forum we call CREW. Seventy‐three graduate students, divided into 18 small groups, tested these forums. We used discourse analysis to measure idea uptake and other dialogic features. From this analysis, seven discussions emerged as particularly interactive and engaging, exhibiting a high uptake‐to‐turn ratio. We noticed linear chat encouraged a high proportion of uptake, but also produced ‘tangles’—breaks in related post chains. CREW discussions sparked similar engagement but resolved most tangles since they required a collaborative written response. This study offers fresh insights in both research and teaching for improving online discussions.<jats:label/><jats:boxed-text content-type=\\\"box\\\" position=\\\"anchor\\\"><jats:caption>Practitioner notes</jats:caption>What is already known about this topic <jats:list list-type=\\\"bullet\\\"> <jats:list-item>A vital practice for scholarly dialogue and democratic discourse is uptake: building on what others have written or said.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Instead of encouraging uptake of others' words and ideas, typical online discussions in Learning Management Systems (LMSs) can inadvertently isolate students in separate threads.</jats:list-item> </jats:list>What this paper adds <jats:list list-type=\\\"bullet\\\"> <jats:list-item>We introduce and analyse two new, innovative types of online discussions that may encourage more uptake of others' words and ideas.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>To eliminate isolation and encourage uptake, a linear chat forum makes all posts visible, but may produce interruptions, or ‘tangles’.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>A forum that includes collaborative responsive writing requires participants to converge on a collective response, encouraging dialogue and overcoming tangles.</jats:list-item> </jats:list>Implications for practice/policy <jats:list list-type=\\\"bullet\\\"> <jats:list-item>Teachers and other stakeholders might consider how discussion forum designs in LMSs can support or limit authentic dialogue.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Practitioners might consider how to incorporate deliberation about a shared focus into online discussions.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Instructors might avoid tangles by aligning assignment purposes with dialogic principles: posing authentic questions that invite multiple interpretations and require uptake of others' responses.</jats:list-item> </jats:list></jats:boxed-text>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Educational Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Educational Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13491\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Educational Technology","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13491","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

真正的对话要求我们对他人的观点做出回应、解释,有时甚至提出异议--这是参与民主社会的关键组成部分。然而,传统的在线平台将学生分割成一个个孤立的线程,从而阻碍了不同观点的分享和吸收。为了解决这个问题,我们引入了两个旨在促进参与和思想交流的新型在线论坛:一个类似于短信的线性聊天工具,以及一个我们称之为 CREW 的协作写作论坛。73 名研究生分成 18 个小组对这些论坛进行了测试。我们使用话语分析来衡量观点吸收和其他对话特征。通过分析,我们发现有七个讨论特别具有互动性和参与性,表现出较高的吸收率和转发率。我们注意到线性聊天鼓励了高比例的吸收,但也产生了 "纠结"--相关帖子链的断裂。CREW 讨论也引发了类似的参与,但由于需要协作性的书面回应,因此解决了大部分纠结。这项研究为改进在线讨论的研究和教学提供了新的见解。 实践者注释关于本主题的已知内容 学术对话和民主讨论的一个重要实践是吸收:以他人的文章或言论为基础。学习管理系统(LMS)中的典型在线讨论非但不鼓励吸收他人的言论和观点,反而会无意中将学生隔离在不同的线程中。本文的补充 我们介绍并分析了两种新颖的在线讨论类型,它们可以鼓励学生更多地吸收他人的言论和观点。为了消除孤立并鼓励吸收,线性聊天论坛使所有帖子可见,但可能会产生中断或 "纠结"。包括协作式回应写作的论坛则要求参与者汇聚在一个集体回应上,鼓励对话并克服纠结。对实践/政策的影响 教师和其他利益相关者可以考虑学习管理系统中的论坛设计如何支持或限制真实对话。实践者可以考虑如何将关于共同焦点的讨论纳入在线讨论。教师可以通过使作业目的与对话原则保持一致来避免纠结:提出真实的问题,邀请多种解释,并要求采纳他人的回应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Online discussion or authentic dialogue? How design affects discussions in two alternative types of online forums
Authentic dialogue demands that we respond, interpret and sometimes disagree with others' ideas—a key component of participation in a democratic society. Yet the sharing and uptake of different ideas can be hampered by traditional online platforms which divide students into isolated threads. To tackle this issue, we introduce two novel online forums designed to foster engagement and idea exchange: a linear chat, akin to SMS, and a collaborative writing forum we call CREW. Seventy‐three graduate students, divided into 18 small groups, tested these forums. We used discourse analysis to measure idea uptake and other dialogic features. From this analysis, seven discussions emerged as particularly interactive and engaging, exhibiting a high uptake‐to‐turn ratio. We noticed linear chat encouraged a high proportion of uptake, but also produced ‘tangles’—breaks in related post chains. CREW discussions sparked similar engagement but resolved most tangles since they required a collaborative written response. This study offers fresh insights in both research and teaching for improving online discussions.Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic A vital practice for scholarly dialogue and democratic discourse is uptake: building on what others have written or said. Instead of encouraging uptake of others' words and ideas, typical online discussions in Learning Management Systems (LMSs) can inadvertently isolate students in separate threads. What this paper adds We introduce and analyse two new, innovative types of online discussions that may encourage more uptake of others' words and ideas. To eliminate isolation and encourage uptake, a linear chat forum makes all posts visible, but may produce interruptions, or ‘tangles’. A forum that includes collaborative responsive writing requires participants to converge on a collective response, encouraging dialogue and overcoming tangles. Implications for practice/policy Teachers and other stakeholders might consider how discussion forum designs in LMSs can support or limit authentic dialogue. Practitioners might consider how to incorporate deliberation about a shared focus into online discussions. Instructors might avoid tangles by aligning assignment purposes with dialogic principles: posing authentic questions that invite multiple interpretations and require uptake of others' responses.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of Educational Technology
British Journal of Educational Technology EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
15.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: BJET is a primary source for academics and professionals in the fields of digital educational and training technology throughout the world. The Journal is published by Wiley on behalf of The British Educational Research Association (BERA). It publishes theoretical perspectives, methodological developments and high quality empirical research that demonstrate whether and how applications of instructional/educational technology systems, networks, tools and resources lead to improvements in formal and non-formal education at all levels, from early years through to higher, technical and vocational education, professional development and corporate training.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信