Exploration of Students’ Social Presence and Discussion Interaction Patterns in Online and Blended Course Sections
Proceeding
Gayle V. Davidson-Shivers, Angela Doucet Rand, Sylvia E. Rogers, Angelia L. Bendolph, University of South Alabama, United States
EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Vancouver, BC, Canada ISBN 978-1-939797-24-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC
Abstract
This paper is a report on the findings of a study conducted on a graduate level educational psychology course with online and blended sections. Social network analysis was used to discover differences in interaction patterns between the two groups. Findings indicate that participants in the blended section had greater reciprocal interaction patterns in the online discussions than did the participants in the fully online section. One item of the Community of Inquiry questionnaire was significant. Participants in the blended section agreed with the statement “getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course” as compared to those in the fully online section. Perhaps, this higher sense of belonging among the students in the blended section allowed them to sustain greater interaction with each other in the discussions. Further research is recommended.
Citation
Davidson-Shivers, G.V., Doucet Rand, A., Rogers, S.E. & Bendolph, A.L. (2016). Exploration of Students’ Social Presence and Discussion Interaction Patterns in Online and Blended Course Sections. In Proceedings of EdMedia 2016--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1032-1039). Vancouver, BC, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 28, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/173073/.
© 2016 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
References
View References & Citations Map- Akyol, Z. & Garrison, D.R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 233-250.
- Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class difference$: Online education in the United States, 2010. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/class_differences.pdf
- Analytics Technologies. (2015). UCINET 6 for Windows software. Lexington, KY: Analytic Technologies. Arbaugh e, J.B., Cleaveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S.R., Garrison, D.R., Ice, P., Richardson, J.C. & Swan, K.P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher education, 11(3), 133136.
- Borgatti, S.P. (2002)..NetDraw software for Network Visualization. Lexington, KY: Analytic Technologies.-1032-EdMedia 2016-Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 28-30, 2016
- Cui, G., Lockee, B., & Meng, C. (2012). Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends. Educational and Informational Technologies,17(1), 1-25.
- Davidson-Shivers, G.V., & Rand, A.D. (2013). Online learning: Houston, do we have a problem? In J. Herrington et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 862-866). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
- Doran, P.R., Doran, C., & Mazur, A. (2011). Social network analysis as a method for analyzing interaction in collaborative online learning environments. Journal of Systemic, Cybernetics and Informatics, 9(7), 10-16.
- Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76, 567-605. Doi:10.3102/00346543076004567
- Means, B. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning [electronic resource] : a metaanalysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from U.S. Dept. Of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development website: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/index.html
- Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: a metaanalysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47.
- Prell, C. (2012). Social network analysis: History, theory& Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
- Russo, T.C. & Koesten, J. (2005). Prestige, centrality, and learning: A social network analysis of an online class. Communication Education, 54(3), 254-261.
- Scott, J. (2013). Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Shea, P. Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., et al. (2010). A reexamination of the community of inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis. Internet and Higher Education 13(1/2), 1021.
- Thormann, J., Gable, S., Fidalgo, P.S., & Blakeslee, G. (2013). Interaction, critical thinking, and social network analysis (SNA) in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 294-318.
- Xie, K., & Ke, F. (2011). The role of students’ motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 916-930.
- Xie, K., Yu, C., & Bradshaw, A.C. (2014). Impacts of role assignment and participation in asynchronous discussions in college-level online classes. The Internet And Higher Education, 2010-19.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to ReferencesCited By
View References & Citations Map-
Content Analyses of Asynchronous Discussions in Online and Blended Course Sections: Completing Phase 2 of Our Study
Gayle V. Davidson-Shivers, Angela Doucet Rand & Suriya "Em" Thongsawat, University of South Alabama, United States
EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2018 (Jun 25, 2018) pp. 1846–1855
These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.