You are here:

Explorations into Teacher Moderating and Student Engagement in a Unique Synchronous Environment

, Michigan State University, United States ; , Indiana University and SurveyShare, Inc., United States ; , Michigan State University, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Washington, DC, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-54-9 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA


There is a significant gap in the research on teacher online moderation as well as in student engagement online. In response, this study explores the linkages between forms of teacher moderating and student behavioral, emotional, and intellectual engagement in a college course on Interpersonal Communications and Relations. Transcripts of students on small and large group activities were analyzed for 11 weeks of this online course. Teacher moderation was examined from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective. Among the areas of most interest were idea generation, student collaboration, meaning construction, and the transactional nature of the relationship between teacher moderating and student engagement. The implications of this study for instructors, tool designers, researchers, and policy makers are discussed.


Shi, S., Bonk, C.J. & Mishra, P. (2004). Explorations into Teacher Moderating and Student Engagement in a Unique Synchronous Environment. In J. Nall & R. Robson (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2004--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2935-2940). Washington, DC, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved January 18, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational g oals: Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York ; Toronto: Longmans, Green.
  2. Bruffee, KA (1993). Education as conversation. In K. A. Brufee (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and authority of knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  3. Carroll, J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record , 64 , 723 - 733.
  4. Dennen, V. P. (2001). The design and facilitation of asynchronous discussion activities in Web-based courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bloomington, IN.
  5. Feenberg, A. (1989a). A user's guide to the pragmatics of computer mediated communication. Semiotica, 75 (3/4), 257- 278.
  6. Feenberg, A. (1989b). The written world. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers, and distance education (pp. 22 -39). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  7. Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22 (4), 16- 23.
  8. Kaye, A (1992) Learning together apart. In Kaye AR (Ed.): Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. NATO ASI Series. Vol 90. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp 1- 24
  9. Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage.
  10. Lave, J., & Wegner, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, Englang: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Lobel, M., Neubauer, M. & Swedburg, R. (2002a) The eClassroom used as a Teacher's Training Laboratory to Measure the Impact of Group Facilitation on Attending, Participation, Interaction, and In volvement. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning , October, 2002.
  12. Lobel, M., Neubauer, M. & Swedburg, R. (2002b) Elements of Group Interaction in a Real-Time Synchronous Online Learning-By-Doing Classroom Without F2F Participation, Journal of the United States Distance learning Association , 16 (2).
  13. Orvis, K. L., Wisher, R. A., Bonk, C. J., & Olson, T. (2002). Communication patterns during synchronous Webbased military training in problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 18 (6), 783 -795
  14. Patton, M. Q. (2002), Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd ed. London: Sage.
  15. Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1996). Networked interactivity. Journal of computermediated communication, 2(4). Retrieved 1/22/2002 from
  16. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer confere nce transcripts. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12 .
  17. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using Peer Teams to Lead Online Discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2002, (1). ISSN:1365-893X [ www-]
  18. Wenger, E (1998 ). Communities of practice: learning as a social system. The System Thinker, 9 (5), 1- 5.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact