Abstract
References
- Alsofyani, A. (2019). Examining EFL learners’ reading comprehension: the impact of metacognitive strategies discussion and collaborative learning within multimedia E-book dialogic environments, Unpublished degree type dissertation. University of South Florida.
- Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003685
- Arvaja, M., & Hamalainen, R. (2021). Dialogicality in making sense of online collaborative interaction: A conceptual perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 48, 100771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. iheduc.2020.100771
- Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
- Bakhtin, M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press.
Abstract
Prior research compared synchronous versus asynchronous online discussions typically using different formats (linear SMS-chat for synchronous versus threaded for asynchronous) and focused on individual posts. We compared both using the same linear chat format and analyzed entire discussions, seeking to resolve previous conflicting results. We examined uptake and dialogic spells (conversations) in linear chat discussions within web-based eBooks. In master’s courses, nine synchronous and nine asynchronous discussions were compared using mixed methods: qualitative coding, statistical analysis, and discourse analysis. The results showed that synchronous discussions had more posts, while asynchronous had longer posts. Synchronous discussions featured longer dialogic spells, more conversational tangles, and frequent repair of these tangles. Synchronous chats were more social, coherent, and collaborative; asynchronous discussions were more formal with more complex individual postings. We propose that instructors could leverage synchronous online discussions to foster social cohesion, enhance student uptake, and support dialogic discourse. Conversely, if instructors aim to achieve more uptake than in threaded discussions, while encouraging more formal elaboration of individual positions in response to discussion questions, asynchronous linear discussions may prove effective. Synchronous online discussions foster greater social cohesion through social exchanges which encourage social bonding and promote collaborative knowledge building.
References
- Alsofyani, A. (2019). Examining EFL learners’ reading comprehension: the impact of metacognitive strategies discussion and collaborative learning within multimedia E-book dialogic environments, Unpublished degree type dissertation. University of South Florida.
- Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003685
- Arvaja, M., & Hamalainen, R. (2021). Dialogicality in making sense of online collaborative interaction: A conceptual perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 48, 100771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. iheduc.2020.100771
- Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
- Bakhtin, M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press.
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Classroom Measurement Practices |
| Journal Section | Research Article |
| Authors | |
| Submission Date | November 21, 2024 |
| Acceptance Date | April 11, 2025 |
| Publication Date | January 1, 2026 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2026 Volume: 27 Issue: 1 |