INTERACTION ANALYSIS IN AN INTERNATIONAL ASYNCHRONOUS LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

• Authors: Fariba Haghighi Irani , Azizeh Chalak
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Interaction Analysis has been explored for the initiating topics, turn taking, and asking and answering questions in face-to-face learning environments during the last decades. This study investigated the form and sequence of the questions and answers in an asynchronous environment from a non-interventionist point of view. To conduct the research, 16 questions and answers from the discussion boards of an eight-week international online research course from 30 participants were copied, classified, and analyzed according to the Hmelo-Silver and Barrows’ (2008) grid. All the questions were classified as long-answer, short-answer, and task-oriented questions and their frequencies were calculated. Also, the presence of the Initiation, Response, and Feedback/Inquiry (IRFI) pattern was examined The results indicated that the largest number of questions fell under long-answer types and the participants were more motivated in responding the long-answer queries relating directly to the immediate studied materials or asking about definitions and personal ideas. The findings supported the idea that IRFI pattern might not be applicable in asynchronous environments. Therefore, the instructional patterns need to be designed carefully according to the needs of the new contexts. This study could enhance meaningful interactions in online educational settings such as language learning, teacher training, and professional development.

Keywords

EN

Interaction analysis; asynchronous learning environment; face-to-Face learning environment; synchronous learning environment; IRFI

• Publisher: IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group & University of Nicosia
• Journal: Teaching English with Technology
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 33-47

Contributors

author

Fariba Haghighi Irani

• Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch

author

Azizeh Chalak

• Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch

References

• Allen, T., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States. Wessley, MA: Sloan-C.
• An, J. & Levin, J. A. (2001). Online discourse patterns: building an instructional framework for designing educational discourses on networks. Retrieved from http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/aera/03/communities/aera-03-an-levin-paper-fina.htm.
• Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249-257.
• Davis, J. (2008). Pay and display: the digital literacy practices of online shoppers. In C. Lankshear, M. Knobel (eds.), Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies, and Practices (pp. 227-248). New York: Peter Lang.
• Davis, J. (2011). Discourse and computer-mediated communication. In K. Hyland, B. Paltridge (ed.), Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis (pp. 228-243). New York: Continuum.
• Hara, N. & Kling, R. (2000). Students’ distress with a web based distance education course: An ethnographic study of participant experiences. Retrieved April 1, 2015, from Indiana University School of Library and Information Science website, http://www.slis.indiana.edu/CSI/wp00-01.html.
• Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton, (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 612-634). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Hmelo-Silver, C.E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating the collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and instruction, 26(1), 48-94.
• Kanuka, H. (2011). Interaction and the online distance classroom: do instructional methods effect the quality of interaction? Science, Business, Media. 23, 143-156.
• Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language learning tasks: teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45, 98-105.
• Laferriere, T., & Lamon, M. (2010). Knowledge building / knowledge forum: the transformation of the classroom discourse. In M.S. Khine, I. M. Saleb (eds.), New Science of Learning: Cognition, Computers and Collaboration in Education (pp. 445-502). New York: Springer.
• Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Milard, M.O. (2010). Analysis of interaction in an asynchronous CMC environment. Web Science Conf., April 26-27. Raleigh, N C, USA.
• Powers, A. & Fuller, D. (2001). Patterns of communication in an asynchronous learning environment. Retrieved from http://www.tresystem.compublications/power%20paper.pdf.
• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawayer (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Salmon, G. (2001). E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Silva, J. (2013). Understanding the construction of the teaching discourse in an online environment. International Education Studies, 6 (3), 143-155.
• Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4 (1), 82-119.
• Tsui, A. B. M. (2012). Ethnography and classroom discourse. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 383-395). New York: Routledge/ Taylor & Francis.
• Well, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Toward a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Woo, Y. & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Interaction in asynchronous Web-based learning environment: Strategies supported by educational research, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3-4), 179-194.
• Zayed, W., & Bali, N. (2015). Introduction of student teachers in Tunisian secondary schools: A discourse analysis of cooperative teacher. Creative Education, 6, 359-368.