The Comparison of Discourse Patterns in Synchronous Online versus F2F Groups in Problem Solving Process

Abstract

It was aimed to compare discourse patterns that revealed in the process of group based mathematical problem solving process among online and face-to-face discussion groups. This study involved 27 pre-service teachers enrolled in a Basic Mathematics-II course and they were divided into two groups: Synchronous Online (SO, n=12) and Face-to-Face (F2F, n=15). Students in each group were required to solve four ill-structured problems collaboratively under problem solving sessions over a six-week period. Data was collected through video recordings of online and audio recordings of face-to-face discussions. Transcripts from SO and F2F discussions were analyzed using discourse analysis method via Discourse Identification Form (DIF) which was developed by researcher. For analyzing discourses in both groups MAXQDA 10 software was used. Based on both face-to-face and online discussion transcripts much more discourses were revealed for F2F groups than SO one. Given the structural phases of discourses it is possible to say that online groups have more active role to contributing the group and they are more task oriented than face-to-face ones.

Keywords

• Computer mediated communication,discourse analysis,group study

Çevrimiçi Eşzamanlı ve Yüz-yüze Grupla Problem Çözme Süreçlerindeki Söylem Örüntülerinin Karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, çevrimiçi ve yüz-yüze ortamlarda gerçekleştirilen grupla matematik problemleri çözme sürecinde ortaya çıkan söylem örüntülerinin karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklemini sınıf öğretmenliği bölümü Temel Matematik-II dersi kapsamında öğrenim gören 27 öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın genelinde grupla çalışma süreci yürütülmüş olup, örneklem kapsamında yer alan öğretmen adayları çevrimiçi (n=12) ve yüz-yüze (n=15) ortamlarında grupla problem çözme etkinlikleri gerçekleştirmiştir. Dört öğrenme alanına ait ayrı problem çözme oturumlarının ele alındığı bu çalışma altı haftalık süreçte yürütülmüş ve her iki ortamdaki grup çalışmalarında gerçekleşen etkinlikler dijital ortamda kayıt altına alınarak veriler toplanmıştır. Kayıtların incelenmesiyle oluşturulan yazılı transkriptler, nitel araştırma yöntemi kapsamında söylem analizinden faydalanılarak niceliksel ve niteliksel açıdan çözümlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular neticesinde, çevrimiçi ortamdakilere oranla yüz-yüze grup çalışmalarında daha fazla söylem belirlenirken, grup çalışmalarına katkı sağlama noktasında çevrimiçi gruplardaki öğrencilerin daha görev odaklı söylem ortaya koymaya çalıştıkları belirlenmiştir.  

Keywords

• Bilgisayar aracılı iletişim,grup çalışması,söylem analizi

References

1. Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2009). Aktif öğrenme (11. Baskı). İzmir: Kanyılmaz Matbaası.
2. Adeyemi, B. A. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning and problem-solving strategies on junior secondary school students’ achievement in social studies. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Physchology, 6(3), 691-708.
3. Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson and F. Elloumi (Eds.). Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca: Creative Commons.
4. Arnseth, H.C., & Hatlevik, O.E. (2010). Challenges in aligning pedagogical practices and pupils’ competencies with the Information Society’s demands: The case of Norway. In S. Mukerji & P. Triphati (Eds.), Cases on technological adaptability and transnational learning: Issues and challenges. Hershey: IGI global.
5. Aydede, M. N. & Kesercioğlu, T. (2012). Aktif öğrenme uygulamalarının öğrencilerin kendi kendine öğrenme becerilerine etkisi. Hacettepe Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43, 37-49.
6. Aydın, S., & Atalay, T. D. (2014). Öz-düzenlemeli öğrenme (2. Baskı). Pegem Akademi, Ankara.
7. Baepler, P., & Walker, J.D. (2014). Active learning classrooms and educational alliances: Changing relationships to improve learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 27–40.
8. Balaji, M.S. & Chakrabarti, D. (2010). Student interactions in online discussion forum: Empirical research from ‘Media Richness Theory’ perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1).

9. Blanco, L.J., Guerrero, B.E., & Caballero, C.A. (2013). Cognition and affect in mathematics problem solving with prospective teachers. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 10(1), 15.
10. Brindley, J.E., Walti, C. & Blaschke, L. M. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3).
11. Cáceres, M., Nussbaum, M., Marroquín, M., Gleisner, S. & Marquínez, J. T. (2018) Building arguments: key to collaborative scaffolding. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(3), 355-371.
12. Cho K.L. & Jonassen D.H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 5–22.
13. Çepni, S. (2005). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş (2.Baskı). Trabzon: Derya Kitapevi.
14. Deiglmayr, A., & Spada, H. (2010b). Developing adaptive collaboration support: The example of an effective training for collaborative inferences. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 103–113.
15. Delice, A., & Taşova, H. İ. (2011). Bireysel ve grup çalışmasının modelleme etkinliklerindeki sürece ve performansa etkisi. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34, 71-97.
16. Demirel, R. (2015). Kuvvet ve hareket konularında bireysel ve grupla argümantasyonun öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına etkisi. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 11(3), 916-948.
17. Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148.
18. Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multimodal collaborative problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 121–151.
19. Dillenbourg, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Computer-supported collaborative learning: The basics. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 21, 111–130.
20. D’Souza, Q. (2006). Web 2.0 ideas for educators. http://www.teachinghacks.com/audio/100ideasWeb2educators.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
21. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 43–52.
22. Evans, S., & Swan, M. (2014) Developing students’ strategies for problem solving. Educational Designer, 2(7). http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume2/issue7/article25/pdf/ed_2_7_evans_swan_14.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
23. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
24. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.
25. Ge, X. & Land, S.M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an illstructured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21-38.
26. Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(3), 257–279.
27. Golanics, J. D. & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 167–180.
28. Gömleksiz, M.N., & Kan, A.Ü. (2012). Eğitimde duyuşsal boyut ve duyuşsal öğrenme. Turkish Sturdies, 7(1), 1159-1177.
29. Greitemeyer, T., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2003). Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: Beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 322–339.
30. Gülbahar, Y. (2009). E-öğrenme. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
31. Harmon, S.W., & Jones, M.G. (2001). An analysis of situated web-based instruction. Eucational Media International, 38(4), 271-280.
32. Haşlaman, T., Demiraslan, Y., Kuşkaya-Mumcu, F., Dönmez, O., & Aşkar, P. (2008). Çevrimiçi ortamda yapılan grup tartışmasındaki iletişim örüntülerinin söylem çözümlemesi yoluyla incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 162-174.
33. Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparision of learning process in online and face-to-face case study discussions. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(2).
34. Hesse F., Care E., Buder J., Sassenberg K., & Griffin P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. In: Griffin P., Care E. (eds). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Educational Assessment in an Information Age. Springer, Dordrecht.
35. Hrastinski, S. (2008). The potential of synchronous communication to enhance participation in online discussions: A case study of two e-learning courses. Information & Management, 45, 499-506.
36. Huang, W. W., & Wei, K. K. (2000). An empirical investigation of the effects of group support systems (GSS) and task type on group interactions from an influence perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(2), 181-206.
37. Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). Exploring socially shared regulation in the context of collaboration. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12(3), 267–286.
38. Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., & Koivuniemi, M. (2016). Recognizing socially shared regulation by using the temporal sequences of online chat and logs in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 42, 1–11.
39. James, J. S. (2011). A comparison of online and face-to-face discussions in an elementary mathematics methods course (Doktora tezi), University of Missipi, Oxford.
40. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, (pp.1017-1044), New York: Macmillan.
41. Jonassen, D.H., & Kwon, H.I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated vs. face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 49 (1), 35-51.
42. Judd, T., Kennedy, G., & Cropper, S. (2010). Using wikis for collaborative learning: assessing collaboration through contribution. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 341- 354.
43. Kalelioglu, F. & Gülbahar, Y. (2010). Çevrimiçi tartışmaların değerlendirilmesi için ölçütlerin belirlenmesi. Eğitim Teknolojileri Araştırma Dergisi, 1(3).
44. Karatas, İ. & Baki, A. (2013). The Effect of Learning Environments Based on Problem Solving on Students’ Achievements of Problem Solving. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2013, 5(3), 249-268.
45. Kim, I. H., Anderson, R. C., Jahiel, K. N., & Archodidou, A. (2011). Discourse patterns during children's collaborative online discussions, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16:3, 333-370.
46. Khan, B. H. (1997). Web-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
47. Khan, B. H. (2007). Flexible learnig in an information society. Information Science Publications.
48. Kirschner, P. A., & Kreijns, K. (2005). Enhancing sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 169–191). US: Springer.
49. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P. A., & Janssen, J. (2011). Differential effects of problem-solving demands on individual and collaborative learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(4),587-599.
50. Koç, Y., & Bulut, S. (2002). Effects of cooperative and individuaustic problem solving methods on mathematical problem solving performance. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 82-90.
51. Lantz, A. (2010) Meetings in a distributed group of experts: Comparing face-to-face, chat and collaborative virtual environments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20:2, 111-117.
52. Lipponen L., Rahikainen M., Lallimo J., & Hakkarainen K. (2003) Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 487–509.
53. Liu, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem solving activity. Computers & Education, 50, 628-639.
54. Liu, C. C., Chung, C. W., Chen, N. S. ve Liu, B. J. (2009). Analysis of peer interaction in learning activities with personal handhelds and shared displays, Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 127-142.
55. Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2008). Blended learning in teacher education: An investigation of classroom community across media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2).
56. McLeod, D.B. (1988). Affective issues in mathematical problem solving: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 19(2):134.Mcmillan, H. J., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education. Boston, USA: Pearson Education.
57. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers.
58. Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: the role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65.
59. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A. M. (2005). Qualitative data analysis. Jakarta : UI Press.
60. Miles, M, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61. Nam, C. W. & Zellner, R. D. (2011). The relative effects of positive interdependence and group processing on student achievement and atttude in online cooperative learning. Computers & Education, 56(3), 680-688.
62. Nebesniak, A. (2007). Using cooperative learning to promote a problem-solving classroom (Yüksek lisans tezi), University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
63. Ng, K.C. (2007). Replacing face-to-face tutorials by synchronous online technologies: Challenges and pedagogical implications. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(1).
64. Ning, H., & Hornby, G. (2014). The impact of cooperative learning on tertiary EFL learners’ motivation. Educational Review, 66(1), 108-124.
65. Olaniran, B., Savage, G. & Sorenson, R. (1996). Experimental and experiential approaches to teaching face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. Communication Education, 45(3).
66. Özdemir, S. & Yalın H. İ. (2007). Web tabanlı asenkron örenme ortamında bireysel ve işbirlikli problem temelli öğrenmenin eleştirel düşünme becerilerine etkileri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 79-94.
67. Pamuk, M. (2012). Problem çözme becerisini geliştirmeye yönelik bir grup rehberlik programı. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(1), 128-136.
68. Park, Y. J. & Jonk, C. J. (2007). Synchronous learning experiences: Distance and residential learners’ perspectives in a blended graduate course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 245-264.
69. Park, E.L., & Choi, B.K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: Traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education, 68(5), 749–771.
70. Perkins, C., & Murphy, E. (2006). Identifying and measuring individual engagement in critical thinking in online discussions: An exploratory case study. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 298-307.
71. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.
72. Pinheiro, M. M., & Simões, D. (2012). Constructing knowledge: An experience of active and collaborative learning in ICT classrooms. ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 392-401.
73. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
74. Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing collaborative interactions: Divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge. Computers and Education. 47(3), 332-351.
75. Resta, P. & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65-83.
76. Rovai, A. P. (2002) Building a sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1-16.
77. Rovai, A. P., Ponton, M., Wighting, M., & Baker, J. (2007). A comparative analysis of student motivation in traditional classroom and e-learning courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 413-432.
78. Ruberg, L. F, Taylor, C.D., & Moore, D. M. (1996). Student participation and interaction online: A case study of two college classes freshman writing and a plant science lab. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 21, 69-92.
79. Sage, S. M. (2000). A natural fit: Problem based learning and technology standards. Learning and Learning with Technology, 28(1), 6-12.
80. Schaber, P., Wilcox, K.J., Whiteside, A., Marsh, L & Brooks, D.C. (2010). Designing learning environments to foster affective learning: Comparison of classroom to blended learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2).
81. Schultz, R. A. (2003). The effectiveness of online synchronous discussion. Information Science and Information Technology Education Conference, 24-27 Haziran 2003, Pori, Finlandiya.
82. Sepeng, P., & Webb, P. (2012). Exploring mathematical discussion in word problem-solving. Pythagoras, 33(1).
83. Shroff, R. H., & Vogel, D. R. (2009). Assessing the factors deemed to support individual student intrinsic motivation in technology supported online and face-to-face discussions. Journal of Information Technology Education, 8, 59-85.
84. Soller, A.L. (2001). Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(1), 40-62.
85. Spector, J. M. (2014). Conceptualizing the emerging field of smart learning environments. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1).
86. Sriraman, B. (2003). Mathematical giftedness, problem solving, and the ability to formulate generalizations. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14(3), 151- 165.
87. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
88. Strømsø, H.I., Grøttum, P. & Lycke, K. H. (2007). Content and processes in problembased leanirng. A comparison of computermediated and face-to-face communication. Journal of Computer Science, 23, 271-282.
89. Sucuoğlu, H. (2003). İşbirlikli öğrenmenin öğrencilerin yükleme, edim ve strateji kullanmaları üzerindeki etkileri ve işbirlikli öğrenme gruplarındaki etkileşim örüntüleri (Doktora tezi), Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
90. Tan, S. C., Turgeon, A. J., & Jonassen, D. H. (2001). Develop critical thinking in group problem solving through computer-supported collaborative argumentation: A case study. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 30, 97-103.
91. Thompson, E. W., & Savenye, W. C. (2007). Adult learner participation in an online degree program: A program-level study of voluntary computer-mediated communication. Distance Education, 28(3), 299–312.
92. Tiene, D. (2000). Online discussions: A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to faceto-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 371–384.
93. Tombak, B. & Altun, S. (2016). The effect of cooperative learning: University example. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 64, 173-196.
94. Uribe, D., Klein, J.D. & Sullivan. H. (2003). The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-defined problems. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51(1), 5-19.
95. Van Boxtel, C., Van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10(4), 311–330.
96. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
97. Wang, H. (2005). A qualitative exploration of the social interaction in an online learning community. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 79-88.
98. Wang, Q. Y. (2008). Student-facilitators’ roles of moderating online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 859-874.
99. Wang, Q. Y. & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272-286.
100. Watson, C. A. (2004). Exploring student collaboration: A comparison of online and face-to-face groups (Doktora tezi), Indiana University, Indiana.
101. Wickersham, L. E., & Dooley, K. E. (2006). A content analysis of critical thinking skills as an indicator of quality of online discussion in virtual learning communities. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(2), 185-193.
102. Young, S. C. (2003). Integrating ICT into second language education in a vocational high school. Journal of Computers Assisted Learning, 19, 447-461.