Abstract
While assigning student roles is a popular technique in online discussions, roles and the responsibilities allocated to them have not been consistently assigned. This makes it difficult to compare implementations and generate principled guidance for role design. This study critically examined frequently assigned student roles and identified a set of seven common functions they ask learners to perform (motivate others to contribute, give direction to the conversation, provide new ideas, use theory to ground the discussion, bring in (relevant external) sources, respond to previous comments, and summarize existing contributions). The latter six functions were used to generate a targeted set of role descriptions (Traffic Director, Starter, Inventor, Importer, Mini-me, Elaborator, Questioner, Devil’s Advocate, Synthesizer, Wrapper) and refine a content analysis scheme to assess function fulfillment in online discussions. The roles were tested in a semester-long mixed-level blended educational technology course of 21 students; student feedback was solicited via survey. Roles designed to elicit the functions give direction, use theory, bring in source, respond, and summarize showed a greater degree of function fulfillment than roles which were not. Students found the Starter role very valuable for giving direction to the discussion, and saw moderate value in the Synthesizer and Wrapper role’s summaries. The Devil’s Advocate role did not fulfill its respond function but was valued by students, suggesting a new possible critique function. All roles were found to use theory, possibly due to task structure. Implications for future research and practice in the design of online discussions are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 53–72.
Beaudin, B. (1999). Keeping online asynchronous discussion on topic. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2), 41–53.
Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 623–643.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unraveling basic components and dimensions (pp. 55–68). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Boulos, M. N., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging web 2.0 social software: An enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24, 2–23.
Bradley, M. E., Thom, L. R., Hayes, J., & Hay, C. (2008). Ask and you will receive: How question type influences quantity and quality of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 888–900.
Chiu, M. M. (2008). Flowing toward correct contributions during group problem solving: A statistical discourse analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 415–463.
Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research—an appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 69–84.
De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2004). It’s not so easy: Researching the complexity of emergent participant roles and awareness in asynchronous networked learning discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 165–171.
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008a). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups by introducing roles: Do students act up to the assigned roles? Small Group Research, 39, 770–794.
De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modelling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 436–447.
De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2009). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: The impact of role assignment and self-assessment on students’ levels of knowledge construction through social negotiation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 177–188.
De Wever, B., Van Winckel, M., & Valcke, M. (2008b). Discussing patient management online: The impact of roles on knowledge construction for students interning at the paediatric ward. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13, 25–42.
Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.
Fang, L., & Loughin, T. M. (in review). Analyzing binomial data in a split-plot design: Classical approach or modern techniques?
Fischer, F., Mandl, H., Haake, J., & Kollar, I. (Eds.). (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.
Gilbert, P., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5–18.
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 2(4), 436–445.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.
Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469.
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analyses of on-line discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.
Hare, A. P. (1994). Types of roles in small groups: A bit of history and a current perspective. Small Group Research, 25(3), 433–448.
Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2002). Web-based cases in teaching and learning: The quality of discussions and a stage of perspective taking in asynchronous communication. Interactive Learning Environments, 10, 1–22.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Murphy, E., & Coleman, E. (2004). Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2). http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/128.
Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3, 56–77.
Palmer, S., Holt, D., & Bray, S. (2008). Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally assessed online discussion on final student results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 847–858.
Persell, C. H. (2004). Using focused web-based discussion to enhance student engagement and deep understanding. Teaching Sociology, 32, 61–78.
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Social communication in computer conferencing. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(3), 259–275.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51–70.
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957–975.
Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2/3), 225–246.
Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36(6), 704–745.
Seo, K. K. (2007). Utilizing peer moderating in online discussions: Addressing the controversy between teacher moderation and nonmoderation. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 21–36.
Stacey, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 14–33.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 195–229.
Tagg, A. C. (1994). Leadership from within: Student moderation of computer conferences. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 40–50.
Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351–366.
Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. In Euro CSCL 2001 (pp. 625–632). Maastricht: McLuhan Institute, University of Maastricht.
Walker, S. A. (2004). Socratic strategies and devil’s advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 172–182.
Wise, A. F., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). Analyzing temporal patterns of knowledge construction in a role-based online discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9120-1.
Yang, Y., Newby, T., & Bill, R. (2005). Using Socratic questioning to promote critical thinking skills through asynchronous discussion forums in distance learning environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 163–181.
Zhu, P. (1998). Learning and mentoring: Electronic discussion in a distance learning course. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 233–259). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wise, A.F., Saghafian, M. & Padmanabhan, P. Towards more precise design guidance: specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions. Education Tech Research Dev 60, 55–82 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9212-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9212-7