Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Conclusions
While the results of this study are encouraging in terms of gaining insights into
effective use of text-based Internet communication tools, it is important to acknowl-
edge that, overall, the levels of cognitive presence in this study remained mediocre
with postings that tended to aggregate in Phase 3 (exploration of issues). The
debriefing sessions with the coders may help to explain these findings. In partic-
ular, during the weekly debriefings the coders often brought up issues that revolved
around a lack of trust formation and the absence of addressing conceptual conflicts
(see Kanuka et al., 2007, for a full description of the coders reflective journals).
It has been argued that these elements are necessary conditions for high levels of
learning and achievement (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Tenenbaum et al., 2001),
which could be an explanation for why the postings tended to aggregate in Phase 3,
rather than Phases 4 and 5.
The coders' observations are also comparable with similar research inves-
tigations. For example, their observations were analogous to Thomas' (2002)
observation that “
the online discussion forum does not promote the inter-
active dialogue of conversation, but rather leads students towards interrelated
monologues
...
Students interact not with another student, but with another stu-
dent's writing” (p. 362). Particularly noteworthy is the observation by Thomas that
“F2F
[sic]
discourse is fundamentally interactional in nature, while written dis-
course is generally transactional in nature” (p. 363), an observation very similar
to one of the coder's observation of the online communication being “a desiccated
document delivery system,” rather than an interactive discussion—and similar to an
observation made by Postman (1992). Postman maintained that oral communication
focuses on group learning, cooperation, and a sense of social responsibility, while
print communication focuses on individualized learning, competition, and personal
autonomy. He further proposed that over four centuries education has achieved a
pedagogical peace between these two forms of learning. Now comes text-based
computer-mediated communication and Postman asks us “Will the widespread use
of computers in the classroom defeat once and for all the claims of communal
speech?” (p. 17). Some communication theorists (e.g., Baron, 2000) have argued
that the written and spoken word is, indeed, merging in informal communication
(e.g., blogs, twitter).
These observations and opinions should give us pause to ask: Is text-based com-
munication a “discussion”? Or is text-based asynchronous communication, as both
the coders and Thomas imply, “correspondence” between two or more persons? Is
it dialogue? Or is it, in fact, as Pawan et al. (2003) and Thomas observe, a mono-
logue? If we agree with communication theorists, that paralinguistic cuing is critical
to the management and coordination of the conversational content (e.g., Clark &
Brennan, 1991; Straus, 1997), then text-based asynchronous communication is
not
a discussion—which may be helpful in understanding why research on investigat-
ing higher levels of online learning that uses online “discussions” as the principal
learning activity has, thus far, had some rather disappointing results.
...
