Content analysis: What are they talking about?
Computers & Education Volume 46, Number 1, ISSN 0360-1315 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd
Quantitative content analysis is increasingly used to surpass surface level analyses in computer-supported collaborative learning (e.g., counting messages), but critical reflection on accepted practice has generally not been reported. A review of CSCL conference proceedings revealed a general vagueness in definitions of units of analysis. In general, arguments for choosing a unit were lacking and decisions made while developing the content analysis procedures were not made explicit. In this article, it will be illustrated that the currently accepted practices concerning the ‘unit of meaning’ are not generally applicable to quantitative content analysis of electronic communication. Such analysis is affected by ‘unit boundary overlap’ and contextual constraints having to do with the technology used. The analysis of e-mail communication required a different unit of analysis and segmentation procedure. This procedure proved to be reliable, and the subsequent coding of these units for quantitative analysis yielded satisfactory reliabilities. These findings have implications and recommendations for current content analysis practice in CSCL research.
Strijbos, J.W., Martens, R.L., Prins, F.J. & Jochems, W.M.G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about?. Computers & Education, 46(1), 29-48. Elsevier Ltd.
Cited ByView References & Citations Map
Shane Dawson & Shane Dawson
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology Vol. 22, No. 4 (Jan 01, 2006)
Dyads Versus Groups: Using Different Social Structures in Peer Review to Enhance Online Collaborative Learning Processes
Francesca Pozzi, Andrea Ceregini, Lucia Ferlino & Donatella Persico, Istituto per le Tecnologie Didattiche - CNR
The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning Vol. 17, No. 2 (Mar 01, 2016)
Towards a Structural Model for Variables in Online Cross-cultural Collaborative Learning Environments
Anh Vu Nguyen-Ngoc & Effie Lai-Chong Law, University of Leicester, United Kingdom
EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2010 (Jun 29, 2010) pp. 1545–1554
Ieda Santos, University of Warwick, United Kingdom; John LeBaron, Western Carolina University, United States, United States; Robert Crow & Dixie McGinty, Western Carolina University, United States
E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (Oct 15, 2007) pp. 6500–6507
David E. Stein, Cheryl L. Engle, M.A., Hilda R. Glazer, Ed.D., Ruth A. Harris, M.Ed., M.A., Susan M. Johnston, M.S.Ed. & Mona R. Simons, M.A., The Ohio State University, United States; Lynn A. Trinko, M.Ed., Ohio State University at Lima, United States; Constance E. Wanstreet, M.S., M.A., The Ohio State University, United States
E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006 (October 2006) pp. 2382–2387
Rose Marra, University of Missouri, United States
Journal of Interactive Learning Research Vol. 17, No. 3 (July 2006) pp. 243–267
These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact email@example.com.