Fostering Quality Online Dialogue: Does Labeling Help?

Autor/inn/en	Bures, Eva; Abrami, Philip; Schmid, Richard F.
Titel	Fostering Quality Online Dialogue: Does Labeling Help?
Quelle	In: Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 21 (2010) 2, S.187-213 (27 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1093-023X
Schlagwörter	Foreign Countries; Electronic Learning; Interpersonal Communication; Electronic Publishing; Communication (Thought Transfer); Asynchronous Communication; Nonverbal Communication; Context Effect; Classification; Graduate Study; Education Courses; Critical Thinking; Sociolinguistics; Canada + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Ausland; Interpersonale Kommunikation; Elektronisches Publizieren; Communication; thought; Kommunikation; Gedanke; Non-verbal communication; Nonverbale Kommunikation; Classification system; Klassifikation; Klassifikationssystem; Aufbaustudium; Graduiertenstudium; Hauptstudium; Fortbildungskurs; Kritisches Denken; Soziolinguistik; Kanada
Abstract	Despite its potential, online dialogue (online dialogue) can be superficial. Following Vygotskian (1978) and design experiment approaches (Brown, 1992), this study explores a labelling feature that allows students to tag parts of their messages. Data comes from 4 sessions of a graduate education course. Students engaged in 2-3 graded online activities in groups of 3-4. Students contributed labels for subsequent sessions. Field-notes and descriptive statistics suggested there were 7 labelling groups, 7 non-labelling groups, and 3 difficult-to-categorize groups. Types of labelling use emerged: interactive labelling, elaboration labelling, and interactive elaboration labelling. Labelling correlated to the quality of online dialogue (r=0.410). The Nelson-Denny text-comprehension measure, task-specific motivation, and labelling predicted approximately 25% of the variance in quality online dialogue, F(3,38)=5.149, p less than 0.05; adding labelling was significant. Narrative analyses suggested that some types of labelling more effectively supported online dialogue than did others. Content analyses (n=696 coded "paragraphs") found the interactive elaboration labelling group contributed proportionately more segments coded as critical thinking than did the elaboration labelling group ((M=0.96 vs. M=0.50), especially more analysis and inference. Labelling correlated to performance on the final examination r=0.283. A model including the final, the Nelson-Denny, task-specific motivation, online dialogue marks, and labelling was significant, (F(4, 37)=8.257, R=0.672, R[superscript 2]adj. = 0.415), but adding labelling was not. (Contains 5 figures and 5 tables.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. P.O. Box 1545, Chesapeake, VA 23327-1545. Tel: 757-366-5606; Fax: 703-997-8760; e-mail: info@aace.org; Web site: http://www.aace.org
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10