Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 1483–1507 | Cite as

Rethinking online discourse: Improving learning through discussions in the online classroom



As colleges continue to expand online offerings, student participation within courses should be assessed to ensure that teachers can best implement effective, responsible lesson plans. This study examined discourse in an online classroom in order to gauge student participation by observing student-to-student and student-to-instructor exchanges within the discussion board. Classroom discourse was analyzed using Stahl’s computer supported collaborative learning methodology. Data was collected to assess development of classroom dialogue through group collaboration, and to determine whether participants were interpreting previous posts and contributing to the development of the discussion topic. This study shows that students within the online classroom were able to construct deeper meanings in classroom dialogues through thoughtful and personal contributions, thereby reaching new understandings through collaborative discussion. This study contends that through insightful planning and guided responses, instructors can manage online classroom discussions to better direct student communications in order to improve collaborative learning and knowledge construction.


CSCL Collaborative Knowledge construction Socio-cognitive Dialogue Online discourse 


  1. Barbosa, R., Jofili, Z., & Watts, D. M. (2004). Cooperating and constructing knowledge: case studies from chemistry and citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 935–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer, L. B. (2012). Digital divides and literacy learning: A metaphor analysis of developmental college students’ and teachers’ conceptualizations of technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
  3. Boostrom, R. E., Jr., Kurthakoti, R., & Summey, J. H. (1999). Enhancing class communications through networks. Marketing Education Review, 19(1), 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Burgess, M. L. (2009). Using WebCT as a supplemental tool to enhance critical thinking and engagement among developmental reading students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(2), 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Candela, A. (1999). Students’ power in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 10(2), 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capper, J. (2001). E-learning growth and promise for the developing world. Techknowlogia 6–10.Google Scholar
  8. Chaika, G. (1999). Virtual high schools: The high schools of the future? Education World. Retrieved October 25, 2010 from
  9. Coiro, J. (2003). Exploring literacy on the internet. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458–464.Google Scholar
  10. Coole, H., & Watts, M. (2009). Communal e-learning styles in the online classroom. Research in Education, 82, 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Leon, L., Pena, C., & Whitacre, M. (2010). Fostering student discourse through an online student teacher support group: a phenomenological study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 37(4), 355–354.Google Scholar
  12. Dennen, V. P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elmer, D. (2007). Something different from the same-oh, same-oh: A survey of community college students’ competence in and use of technology in public speaking classes. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 8(1). Retrieved August 3, 2009 from
  14. Engstrom, E. U. (2005). Reading, writing, and assistive technology: an integrated developmental curriculum for college students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(1), 30–39.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferdig, R. E., & Roehler, L. R. (2004). Student uptake in electronic discussions: examining online discourse in literacy preservice classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hwang, A., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2009). Seeking feedback in blended learning: competitive versus cooperative student attitudes and their links to learning outcome. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 280–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2000). The eight steps of ensuring diversity is a resource. The Newsletter of the Cooperative Learning Institute, 15(1), n.p.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, B. J. (2003). Learning with, through, and about computers: students’ best friend or worst nightmare? Teaching English in the Two Year College, 30(3), 286–295.Google Scholar
  20. Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Agamba, J. (2014). Promoting effective e-learning practices through the constructivist pedagogy. Education and Information Technologies, 19(4), 887–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2013). Toward a framework for CSCL research. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuehner, A. V. (1999). The effects of computer instruction on college students’ reading skills. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 29(2), 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lapadat, J. (2003). Teachers in an online seminar talking about talk: classroom discourse and school change. Language and Education, 17(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, K. (2007). Online collaborative case study learning. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(2), 82–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liang, L. L., Ebenezer, J., & Yost, D. S. (2009). Characteristics of pre-service teachers’ online discourse: the study of local streams. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liaw, S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: a case study of the blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864–873.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McMahon, M. (1997). Social constructivism and the World Wide Web: A paradigm for learning. Retrieved October 3, 2010, from
  28. Moore, R. (2007). Academic motivation and performance of developmental education biology students. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(1), 24–34.Google Scholar
  29. Nofsinger, R. E. (1999). Everyday conversations. Prospect Heights: Waveland.Google Scholar
  30. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online discourse. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schallert, D. L., Chiang, Y. V., Park, Y., Jordan, M. E., Lee, H., Cheng, A. J., Chu, H. R., Lee, S., Kim, T., & Song, K. (2009). Being polite while fulfilling different discourse functions in online classroom discussions. Computers & Education, 53, 713–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Singara, M. D., Battle, J., & Nicholson, S. A. (1998). E-mail ‘Booktalking’: Engaging developmental readers with authors and others in the academic community. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 29(1), 30(1). Retrieved July 6, 2009, from Expanded Academic ASAP via Gale:
  33. Smith, B. Q. (2004). Genre, medium, and learning to write: negotiating identities, enacting school-based literacies in adulthood. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 34(2), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Upton, D. (2006). Online learning in speech and language therapy: student performance and attitudes. Education for Health, 19, 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vacca, R. T. (2006). They can because they think they can. Educational Leadership, 63(5), 56–59.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Williams, S. W., Watkinds, K., Daley, B., Courtenay, B., Davis, M., & Dymock, D. (2001). Facilitating cross-cultural online discussion groups: implications for practice. Distance Education, 22(1), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xin, C., & Feenberg, A. (2006). Pedagogy in cyberspace: the dynamics of online discourse. Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 1–25.Google Scholar
  40. Yim, Y. K. (2011). Second language students’ discourse socialization in academic online communities. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(1), 1–27.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang, S., & Duke, N. K. (2008). Strategies for internet reading with different reading purposes: a descriptive study of twelve good internet readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 128–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human ServicesUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations