




















































4003


Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013, pp. 60 – 78. 

Fostering collaboration and learning in asynchronous online 
environments 

 
Karen M. Gibson1  

 
Abstract: This case study, based on social constructivist learning theory, analyzed 
the quality of interaction and learning taking place during asynchronous 
discussions in a graduate level course by focusing on the types of instructional 
strategies employed to foster discussion. Qualitative and quantitative procedures 
were used to analyze knowledge construction processes based on previously 
conducted research that provided a set of indicators for replication in coding and 
comparison of results. The role of facilitator was closely monitored in relation to 
the quality of responses in regard to knowledge construction in order to 
determine the types of instructional strategies best suited to draw students into 
online discussions that are constructivist, collaborative approaches to building 
knowledge.  
 
Keywords: constructivist learning; collaborative learning; online learning; 
computer-mediated instruction 

 
I. Introduction. 
 
Online and blended learning has grown significantly in recent years. Spurred by the increased 
interest among faculty in designing effective learning experiences, this rapid growth requires a 
focus on the types of instructional strategies that will best serve as effective tools to draw 
students into online discussions that are constructivist, collaborative approaches to creating 
meaning. While significant research has been conducted on the quantitative nature of online 
discussion participation (Henri, 1992; Harasim, 1993; Hillman, 1999), far more research should 
focus on what happens to learning within this environment (Schrire, 2006). 

The asynchronous online discussion environment offers unique opportunities for students 
and instructors. Since participation is not required at a specified time, or during a structured 
must-be-present-window, students have the luxury of time in order to write and even re-write 
their responses. Without specified time constraints, students can take time to review posts, reflect 
on the direction they wish to move the discussion, and at their discretion, end or begin new 
discussion strands (De Wever, Schellens, Valcke, & Van Keer, 2006; Pena-Shaff & Nicholls, 
2004). This careful deliberation and articulation of ideas has the potential to improve students’ 
writing and thinking skills. Most importantly, this makes an online discussion a collaborative, 
reflective activity (Pena-Schaff & Nicholls, 2004) that is characterized as dialogic in nature 
(Schrire, 2006). Such interactions hold interpersonal significance and highlight the importance of 
learner interaction in view of knowledge construction. “The need to articulate one’s own 
argument in this type of text-based environment encourages students to engage in analytical and 
reflective action. This process helps students construct purposeful arguments and transmit them 

                                                
1 College of Education and Human Services, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, 800 Algoma Blvd, Oshkosh, WI 54901, 
gibsonk@uwosh.edu 
 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

61 

to an audience” (Pena-Shaff, Martin, & Gay, 2001, p. 65). Careful analysis of such interactions 
can help determine whether or not they facilitate critical thinking and encourage the process of 
knowledge construction. 

Within a traditional face-to-face classroom, instructors often spend time preparing 
students for and guiding students through appropriate, effective discussions, incorporating a 
variety of strategies based on the pace of the class, the reactions of students to the content and 
one another, and a general reading of body language and other non-verbal cues. Such discussion 
techniques in the face-to-face classroom are not readily transferable to the online environment. 
“Without having face-to-face interaction, the absence of nonverbal cues and contextual 
information, it is a formidable task to elicit participants’ sense of social presence in a learning 
community with only text based asynchronous discussion board communication tools” (An, 
Shin, & Lim, 2009, p. 751). New pedagogical approaches must be developed and honed.  

A variety of instructional strategies can be applied to encourage student learning online—
especially those activities for online and blended learning in an asynchronous environment. 
Graduate students bring another dimension to this environment as they enter with a level of 
confidence gained from more life experiences and an eagerness to share that learned-in-the-
trenches knowledge. They often bring an eagerness to serve in a more active role in the online 
environment, allowing for the instructor to become a less dominant presence. Assigning roles is a 
common means of generating meaningful discussion and knowledge construction (DeWever, 
Van Keer, Schellens, & Valcke, 2010; Baran & Correia, 2009).  According to Baran and Correia 
(2009), it is helpful to allow for student-led facilitation strategies to overcome the challenges of 
instructor-dominated facilitation. An instructor as the center of discussion has the potential to 
create what Rourke & Anderson (2002) describe as an “authoritarian presence” (p. 4). For many 
instructors, it is necessary to experience a paradigm shift wherein student-dominated discussions 
replace instructor-dominated facilitations. According to Harasim (1990), the key differences 
between online and face-to-face discussions are time and place dependence, and the richness and 
the structure of communication. Discussion techniques frequently used by instructors in the face-
to-face setting have to be modified in order to facilitate discussion in the electronic forum. 
Finding the most effective pedagogical approach for the online environment can be a challenging 
task.  

The classroom setting allows for the careful development of a community of learners. 
This same sense of community can and should be developed in the online environment. 
Interaction among students in a discussion forum helps them apply and integrate new knowledge 
in the course of engaging in group interaction (Wang, 2010). As students construct meaning 
through interaction with others, they are participating in a community of learning (Rourke, 
Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). According to Palloff and Pratt (2007), “The learning 
community is the vehicle through which learning occurs online. It is the relationships and 
interactions among people through which knowledge is generated” (p. 15). The importance of 
dialogue is founded on principles of social constructivist theory. Social constructivists consider 
individual learning as socially mediated, incorporating such principles as active learning, self-
reflection, authentic learning and collaborative learning. Learning is collaborative in nature; 
group settings can further foster learning (Schrire, 2004). Asynchronous online environments can 
provide students with opportunities such as self-reflection, elaboration, and in-depth analysis of 
course content, allowing for purposeful construction of knowledge (Pena-Schaff & Nicholls, 
2004). Rourke and Anderson (2002) assert the importance of online discussion as an essential 
activity for co-constructing knowledge since “explaining, elaborating, and defending one’s 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

62 

position to others forces learners to integrate and elaborate knowledge in ways that facilitate 
higher-order learning” (p. 3). 

The level of interaction helps result in learning. Dennen and Wieland (2007) indicate, 
“Learners must interact in some particular ways, engaging with each other and course material at 
deep (as opposed to surface) levels, which lead toward negotiation and internalization of 
knowledge rather than just rote memorization of knowledge” (p. 283). According to Andresen 
(2009), it is important for instructors to make asynchronous discussions successful. In order for 
this to occur, two important components must be carefully considered: the role of the instructor 
and how to achieve deeper/higher learning. The work of De Wever, Van Keer, Schellens, and 
Valcke (2009) indicates that a significant positive impact of assigning roles to students can be 
achieved, particularly if the role assignments occur early in the instructional period. Facilitation 
becomes a shared responsibility among instructors and students. According to Baran and Correia 
(2009), the majority of research focuses on instructor facilitation strategies and only a limited 
number of researchers have examined the use of facilitation strategies in peer-facilitation 
contexts. 

The online environment presents itself as a critical tool for constructing, representing and 
mediating discussions between students. Facilitating learners to elaborate their knowledge in 
peer discussions and acquire multiple perspectives on a topic can be achieved through the 
assigning of roles. Roles assigned to students have the potential to increase knowledge 
construction through social negotiation outside the confines of the brick and mortar classroom. 
Simply placing students in groups does not automatically bring about collaborative learning or 
effective interaction. A purposeful instructional design, building on collaborative learning 
environments must focus on embedding certain amounts of structure, such as setting clear goals 
and defining the tasks (DeWever et al., 2009). In the case of this study, the purposeful 
instructional design included specific facilitation requirements for each of three discussions 
under investigation. 

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of various facilitation strategies on 
constructing knowledge and increasing collaboration in the asynchronous online discussion 
environment. An analysis of the interactions within online discussions designed as part of a 
hybrid delivery of instruction was completed in order to characterize successful student-led 
facilitation strategies in asynchronous discussions.  
 
A. Framework. 
 
The guiding framework for this work is learning as social construction of meaning. According to 
social constructivist theory, when students are presented with learning environments that 
encourage active participation, interaction and dialogue, they become opportunities to create 
meaning from new experiences (Jonassen, Davison, Collins, Campbell, & Bannan Haag, 1995). 
A constructivist theory suggests that learning is more effective when students are given 
opportunity to discuss ideas, experiences and perceptions with their peers.  

Based on the constructivist framework of learning, educational environments should 
provide activities and opportunities for students to articulate and reflect on the content 
under study, to negotiate meaning with the self (reflective activity) and with others, and 
to apply the knowledge learned in real life situations. In this manner, learning becomes an 
active process in which individuals create meaning by analyzing, discussing and 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

63 

experiencing new situations and applying new concepts. (Pena-Shaff & Nicholls, 2004, p. 
245)   

Rourke and Anderson (2002) conclude that from a social constructivist perspective, online 
discussions create opportunities for students to construct meanings together and integrate new 
knowledge into their prior experiences. The asynchronous online discussion environment 
provides the context and tools for students to engage in meaningful learning experiences. 
“Theoretical models of collaborative learning consider the discourse in a computer conference as 
both reflecting and shaping the cognitive processes” (Schrire, 2006, pp. 52-53). Schrire (2006) 
goes on to note that the cognitive processes are of a social nature in that they arise out of, and 
contribute to, the interactions among the participants.  
 
B. Choosing a methodological approach. 
 
Early research on online learning focused on the quantifiable variables; however, the early 
1990’s brought an increased emphasis on the aspects of quality of learning and learning 
interaction (Henri, 1992; Hillman, 1999; Pena-Shaff, Martin, & Gay, 2001). Creating a study that 
moved beyond the quantifiable variables was important to this researcher in developing 
strategies appropriate and effective in the online environment. Qualitative research, from a 
philosophical perspective, is based on a view that there are “multiple realities” (Schrire, 2006, p. 
52). Mason (1992) recommends the use of content analysis in studies on computer conferencing. 
Additionally, Merriam (2001) asserts that the performance of a content analysis within the case 
study framework allows a study to move from mere description to meaningful interpretation. 
Content analysis is not only compatible with the case study approach (Schrire, 2006) it also 
provides the basis for interpretation in context (Cronbach, 1975). This study, different from a yes 
or no question-and-answer approach frequently associated with quantitative research, develops 
around what Merriam (2001) describes as a focus on what happens in a given context, how the 
events take place and why they occur. A case study approach incorporating both qualitative 
(participation levels, percentages of indicators covered) and qualitative (content analysis of 
discussion posts) design proved the most effective approach for this study. The application of 
three different treatments in the form of facilitation approaches provided an opportunity for 
comparison between discussions. Finally, using the Knowledge Construction Category System 
previously developed by Pena-Schaff and Nicholls (2004) allowed for a comparison to their 
study regarding the creation of knowledge in the online setting. 
 
II. Methodology. 
 
A. Context. 
 
This study took place in the context of a graduate level course at a comprehensive university in 
the Midwestern USA. The Master of Science degree program, housed in the university’s College 
of Education and Human Services, includes a 3-credit required course focused on the theoretical 
background of educational systems in the United States.  The degree program was designed for 
any students seeking increased formal and informal leadership skills in pre-kindergarten to 12th 
grade (Pk-12) settings, higher education institutions, non-profit organizations, or any other 
systems focused on education and leadership. The hybrid nature of the course incorporates both 
face-to-face and online components, with students meeting on campus every other week and in 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

64 

the online environment during the opposite weeks. Also known as a blended course, this 
approach combines face-to-face instruction with computer mediated instruction as an alternative 
to the traditional delivery model. Such blending has been found to contribute to both 
achievement and student satisfaction (Roblyer & Wiencke, 2004) and has become an 
increasingly popular delivery model in higher education (An & Frick, 2006; Ng & Cheung, 
2007). This study focused on the analysis of knowledge construction in online class discussions. 
 
B. Participants. 
 
The course under study during the Spring 2012 semester included 17 women and 7 men (n=24). 
All 24 successfully completed the course.  The researcher served as the instructor of the course. 
All 24 students were Pk-12 teachers, counselors or library media specialists seeking a Master of 
Science degree. Eleven of the participants were also seeking Pk-12 administrative licensure.   
 
C. Discussion Assignments. 
 
Throughout the semester, there were six online discussion sessions. The first discussion 
assignment focused on introductory statements from participants. This was meant to provide 
some instruction on using the Desire2Learn (D2L) discussion features and comfort in navigating 
this particular platform. D2L is the university-adopted platform serving multiple functions, one 
of which is its online learning environment. The final two discussions focused on group project 
progress. The study, therefore, focused on the discussion assignments in weeks 4, 6 and 8 of the 
14-week semester. Each of these discussion assignments was different in regard to the type of 
facilitation required. The week 4 discussion treatment was a loosely structured (non-facilitated) 
approach. The week 6 discussion required each student to facilitate a specific topic within the 
broader discussion. The week 8 discussion treatment was a single volunteer serving as facilitator 
for the overall discussion. Each discussion assignment was open for a 10-day window. 
 During face-to-face instruction time, information was provided to students regarding 
quality posts. Handouts to further clarify were also provided (See Appendix A). Students were 
placed in groups of four for each discussion. Group membership changed with each discussion. 
The instructor monitored the online discussions, providing comments and feedback during face-
to-face classroom time but not directly participating in the online group discussions. The purpose 
of the study was to analyze the quality of interaction and learning taking place during 
asynchronous discussions by focusing on the types of instructional strategies employed to foster 
knowledge building in a collaborative online environment.  Using three different discussion 
techniques allowed for comparison of the three in terms of levels of participation and depth of 
knowledge construction.  
 
D. Data collection and analysis. 
 
Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were employed to describe and analyze levels of 
participation, interaction, and meaning construction. The quantitative data included the total 
number of messages posted for each treatment, the percentage of overall messages posted per 
treatment, and the percentage of knowledge construction posts per the work of Pena-Shaff and 
Nicholls (2004). The administrative functions of D2L were used to note frequency of 
participation and threads of interactions; however, since paragraphs were the unit of measure for 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

65 

this study, that data was of far less importance than the content of the messages. The qualitative 
data of this study consisted of the content analysis of the three discussion assignments. Content 
analysis was conducted on the transcripts of the discussions each week under study. Rourke and 
Anderson (2004) suggest that instead of developing new coding schemes, researchers should use 
schemes that have been developed and used in previous research, fostering replicability and the 
validity of the instrument (Stacey & Gerbic, 2003; Hannafin & Kim, 2003). This study, 
therefore, utilized the coding schema developed by Pena-Shaff, Martin, and Gay (2001) and 
further modified by Pena-Shaff & Nicholls (2004). Using the existing category system, or set of 
indicators, allowed for coding and categorizing of discussions and the opportunity for comparing 
results to the patterns identified in the work of Pena-Shaff and Nicholls (2004). As the previous 
study already revealed the types of posts that could be identified as knowledge building, the 
current study used those findings to better identify the strategies that could be identified as 
knowledge building. The codes and descriptions of this model can be viewed in Table 1.   

The discussion transcripts from the three selected discussion assignments were coded by 
the instructor/researcher. An initial coding was completed for each week under study. As a 
follow-up at the end of the data-collecting weeks, a second coding of the messages was 
conducted to check for ambiguity in the coding.  Paragraphs were chosen as the unit of analysis. 
Each discussion contribution reflects a level of social construction knowledge. These levels were 
determined by applying the Pena-Shaff and Nicholls’ Knowledge Construction Category System 
and Indicators. Each message (paragraph) received one code. When a message was comprised of 
multiple levels of knowledge construction, the most prominent was assigned. For example, when 
a student provided clarification of a previous statement but went on to provide interpretation of 
the discussion topic, the more prominent or more elaborated upon indicator was assigned.   
 
Table 1. Knowledge Construction Category System and Indicators2 
Category and Description    Indicators 
Question: Gathering unknown information,  + Information seeking questions 
inquiring, starting a discussion or reflecting on the  + Discussion questions 
problems raised.     + Reflective questions 
 
 Reply: Responding to other participants’  + Direct responses to information-seeking questions 
questions or statements.    + Elaborated responses that include information sharing,  
      clarification and elaboration, and interpretation 
 
Clarification: Identifying and elaborating on ideas  + Stating or identifying ideas, assumptions and facts 
and thoughts.   + Linking facts, ideas and notions 

+ Identifying or reformulating problems 
+ Explaining ideas presented by 
 -using examples 
 -describing personal experiences 
 -decomposing ideas 
 -identifying or formulating criteria for judging 

 possible answers or to justify own statements 
                (Making lists of reasons for or against a position) 

       -arguing own statements 
       -defining terms 
       -establishing comparisons 

                                                
2 Pena-Shaff, J. & Nicholls, C. (2003). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board 
discussions. Computers & Education, 12, 243-256. 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

66 

       -presentation of similarities and differences 
       -listing advantages or disadvantages 
       -using analogies 
       -identifying causes and consequences 
Interpretation: Using inductive and deductive  + Reaching conclusions 
analysis based on facts and premises posed,   + Making generalizations 
making predictions and building hypotheses.  + Predicting 
Includes reflection and analysis when originating +Building hypothesis 
from the clarification point.   + Summarizing 
      + Proposing solutions 
 
Conflict: Debating other participants’ point of view, + Presenting alternative/opposite positions (debating) 
showing disagreements and information in previous + Disagreements 
messages, and taken to an extreme, friction among  + Friction 
participants. 
 
Assertion: Maintaining and defending ideas   +Re-statement of assumptions and ideas 
questioned by other participants by providing + Defending own arguments by further elaboration on the  
explanations and arguments that defend original     ideas previously stated 
statements. 
  
Consensus Building: Trying to attain a common + Clarifying misunderstandings 
understanding of the issues in debate.  + Negotiating 
      + Reaching consensus or agreement    
 
Judgment: Making decisions, appreciations,  +Judging the relevance of solutions 
evaluations and criticisms of ideas, facts and  + Making value-judgments 
solutions discussed as well as evaluating text  + Topic evaluation 
orientation and authors’ positions.   + Evaluating text orientation and authors’ position about the 
          subject being discussed 
 
Reflection: Acknowledging learning something + Self-appraisal of learning 
new, judging importance of discussions topic in  + Acknowledging learning something new 
relation to their learning.    + Acknowledging importance of subject being discussed in  
          their learning 
 
Support: Establishing rapport, sharing feelings,  + Acknowledging other participants’ contributions and ideas 
agreeing with other people’s ideas either directly + Empathy: sharing of feelings with other participants’  
or indirectly, and providing feedback to other     comments (“I felt the same way…”) 
participants’ comments.    + Feedback 
 
Other: Includes mixed messages difficult to   + Messages not identified as belonging to a specific category 
categorize and social statements.    + Social comments not related to the discussions: greetings, 
          jokes, etc. 
      + Emotional responses 
 
Table 2. Total numbers and percentages by treatment. 

Treatment Total number of 
Paragraphs Posted 

Percentage of 
Paragraphs Posted 

Percentage of PKCC 
Paragraphs Posted 

#1 212 31.5 64 
#2 340 50 69.1 
#3 124 18 87 

Total Paragraphs 676   
 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

67 

As was the case in the Pena-Shaff and Nicholls (2004) study, content analysis was used 
to identify the most common patterns of discourse. The category system previously developed 
and applied in that study was applied to the current study.  According to Pena-Shaff & Nicholls 
(2004), “Statements of clarification, interpretation, conflict, assertion, judgment and reflection 
appear to be most directly related to the process of knowledge construction” (p. 252). For 
discussion purposes, this researcher has labeled these six indicators as primary knowledge 
construction categories (PKCC). Treatment one, or a loosely structured (non-facilitated) 
approach, included a total of 212 paragraphs posted (see Figure 1). Of these 31.5% of the overall 
676 posted during the study weeks, 64% were coded as PKCC posts. 

   
Figure 1. Percentage of Knowledge Construction in a loosely structured open discussion. 
 
Treatment two, where each student was required to take responsibility for facilitating a specific 
topic within the overall discussion, consisted of 340 posted, or 50% of the total posts under 
study. This treatment generated 69.1% of PKCC posts (see Figure 2).    

 
Figure 2. Percentage of Knowledge Construction with required facilitation. 
 

39.20%	
  

12.70%	
  

12.70%	
  

11.30%	
  

10%	
  

8.50%	
  
1.80%	
   0.47%	
  

Treatment #1 - Loosely structured open discussion 

Clarifica4on	
  (39.2%)	
  

Ques4on	
  (12.7%)	
  

Reply	
  (12.7%)	
  

Judgment	
  (11.3%)	
  

Support	
  (10%)	
  

Interpreta4on	
  
(8.5%)	
  
Asser4on	
  (1.8%)	
  

49.40%	
  

17.10%	
  

9.70%	
  

7.90%	
  

6.50%	
  
4.10%	
  

1.50%	
  0.30%	
  
0.30%	
  

Treatment #2 - Facilitation  required by each 
participant 

Clarifica4on	
  (49.4%)	
  

Ques4on	
  (17.1%)	
  

Judgment	
  (9.7%)	
  

Reply	
  (7.9%)	
  

Interpreta4on	
  (6.5%)	
  

Support	
  (4.1%)	
  

Conflict	
  (2%)	
  



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

68 

The final treatment, where an individual in each discussion group volunteered to serve as 
facilitator for the length of the discussion, generated a total of 124 paragraph posts. This small 
number, only 18% of the total study posts, also generated the highest level of PKCC posts with 
87% falling into the categories identified by Pena-Shaff and Nicholls (2004) as knowledge 
construction categories (see Figure 3).  
 

 
Figure 3. Percentage of Knowledge Construction with a Volunteer Facilitator. 
 
IV. Discussion. 
 
This small-scale case study provided a great deal of information regarding the role of facilitation 
in a graduate-level hybrid delivery course. According to Andresen (2009), “The primary 
difficulty in making any assessment of an asynchronous discussion forum is the huge volume of 
data that are available to be assessed…” (p. 252). Despite the small number of participants in this 
study, there was a “huge volume” of data, with a total of 676 paragraphs to be coded. Had the 
volume been low, this researcher would have felt uncomfortable making generalizations in 
regard to the facilitation types as knowledge construction contributors.  
 Hew, Cheung, and Ng (2009) conducted a study to determine what motivates students to 
contribute to student-facilitated discussions. Their findings indicated that 66% of the study 
participants agreed or strongly agreed that familiarity with the discussion facilitator motivated 
them to contribute more frequently to message postings. The findings by Hew, Cheung, and Ng 
clearly address the impact of the hybrid nature of a course versus a fully online version. The 
face-to-face sessions provide opportunity for community building that carries over into the 
electronic environment. Activities conducted in face-to-face settings to build community likely 
contributed to the strong online presence found in this study. The significant volume of data may 
be directly attributable to the learning community previously built.  
 Another study relevant to the findings of the current study was conducted by Baran and 
Correia (2009) where, similar to the current study, the researchers used three separate facilitation 
treatments, conducting each as a separate mini-case. Each case represented a different facilitation 
experience in their search to discover whether peer facilitation strategies could be used to 
overcome the challenge of instructor-led facilitation, enhance the sense of a learning community 
and encourage students’ participation. What they found in their study was that regardless of the 

59.70%	
  

24.20%	
  

3.20%	
  

2.40%	
   2.40%	
  
1.60%	
  

0.80%	
  

Treatment #3 - Volunteer Facilitator 

Clarifica4on	
  (59.7%)	
  

Interpreta4on	
  (24.2%)	
  

Ques4on	
  (3.2%)	
  

Reflec4on	
  (2.4%)	
  

Other	
  (2.4%)	
  

Reply	
  (1.6%)	
  

Judgment	
  (.8%)	
  



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

69 

type of peer-discussion facilitation, whether highly structured, inspirationally facilitated, or 
practice-oriented, peer facilitation can help generate innovative ideas, motivate students to 
participate actively and provide an atmosphere for involvement and commitment. Also relevant 
was that it did not matter if the group sizes or memberships changed; all three treatments 
promoted meaningful dialogue, produced high levels of participation, and included quality 
conversation. The current study found the same to be true.  
 As noted earlier, previously developed indicators served the critical role of providing 
categories of knowledge construction. Content analysis was used to identify the most common 
patterns of discourse, just as was done in the Pena-Shaff and Nicholls (2004) study, and the 
category system indicators were applied to the data. In their work, Pena-Shaff and Nicholls 
determined six categories as indicators of knowledge construction. In the current study, those six 
categories were evaluated in each of the three treatments to determine levels of knowledge 
construction. A volunteer facilitator during a group discussion generated the highest level of 
PKCC posts, providing insights into discussion strategies that support learning in the online 
environment. In addition to the six indicators labeled as PKCC (clarification, interpretation, 
conflict, assertion, judgment and reflection), Pena-Shaff and Nicholls identified secondary levels 
of indicators in relation to knowledge construction. 

Questions, according to Pena-Shaff and Nicholls (2004), also indicate that students are 
trying to make sense of and understand topics being discussed. While quality reflective questions 
can certainly serve this purpose, this study found questions to be generally overused in terms of 
simple discussion generation. During treatment two, facilitation was apparently defined by 
students as generating questions in order to start and/or continue an online discussion. This is not 
necessarily counterproductive, except that several questions were raised without any follow-up to 
them by other discussion participants. In fact, 17 questions were raised during the second 
discussion period (treatment two) without any response.  

Of the categories identified, clarification statements formed 48% of the total (676) 
paragraphs. This means that students spent a great deal of time explaining and elaborating upon 
their ideas. Pena-Shaff and Nicholls (2004) had similar results. They noted, “Although in many 
cases clarification statements began as messages either questioning or responding to previous 
messages, they tended to become reflective monologues in which students focused more on 
explaining their own ideas, perspective and beliefs than on addressing specific points in others’ 
contributions” (p. 257). The following represents an example of this type of message: 

That's a good question! I think I would have a ‘senior’ teacher who has bought into a 
school-wide system give a little presentation to the teacher who has not yet bought in. 
Obviously, we want to make the teacher understand why we are implementing a system 
and to be able to see the benefits. I think having another co-worker explain the situation 
may make the teacher more receptive. Also, I think the Administrator should make 
unscheduled ‘visits’ to all classrooms. This is not to look for any problems or issues, but 
rather to keep current with curriculum and classroom tendencies in all grade levels. 
 
Interpretation statements, including inferences, conclusions, discussion summaries, 

generalizations, hypothesis building, and suggesting solutions to problems stated represented, 
overall, just 10% of the statements; however, this category also showed the greatest amount of 
change between the first two discussion treatments and the third: Treatment one: 8.5%; treatment 
two: 6.5%; treatment three: 24.2%. This indicates that in the first two treatments, students did not 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

70 

provide a summary of ideas presented in a discussion thread. In the third discussion, with a 
single facilitator, this increased significantly. 
 Conflict was almost non-existent in the discussions. Despite this researcher spending time 
in class assuring students that a healthy discussion can include disagreements with one another, 
and facilitating such disagreements in the face-to-face setting, students were loath to disagree in 
the online format with a mere 1.4% labeled as such. Conflict has the potential to enhance 
discussion through a quality debate. This, however, was absent from the three discussions 
analyzed. Equally low in number (1.1%) were statements of assertion. This seems to indicate that 
very few students replied to messages that challenged ideas they had presented in previous 
messages.  

It appears from this analysis that the treatment applied to each discussion influenced 
participation levels as well as knowledge construction. Based on the categories established by 
Pena-Shaff and Nicholls (2004), when discussion was left as an open forum without facilitation, 
less knowledge construction occurred.  Participation levels were, of course, much higher when 
all students were required to facilitate some portion of the discussion (treatment two); however, 
the PKCC stayed very close in percentage to when no facilitation occurred (treatment one). The 
greatest level of PKCC occurred when a student served as a facilitator of the discussion, as was 
done in treatment three. The participation level declined for this treatment (only 18% of all 
paragraphs posted throughout the entire study period), but the overall quality of the discussion in 
terms of knowledge construction was far greater with 87% of the paragraphs posted falling into 
the PKCC categories. Gilbert and Dabbagh (2005) offer one possible explanation for this 
significant difference between the treatments. In a study examining the impact of highly 
structured versus less structured discussions, Gilbert and Dabbagh found that participation levels 
were higher when specific facilitator guidelines were provided. This was certainly the case in the 
current study as guidelines were carefully spelled out for treatments one and two, those with the 
highest participation levels, but far less structured in the third treatment where participation 
dropped.  A sample of discussion postings and their codes can be found in Appendix B. 
 Some limitations of the study must also be noted. Benefits certainly exist in using a 
previously-developed coding scheme. Clearly, this allows for comparison and replication. Pena-
Schaff and Nicholls (2004) provide a variety of samples and examples to further clarify and 
define indicators; however, limitations exist. There is still the limitation of one researcher closely 
using the work of another without being able to fully guarantee reliability as it is impossible for 
the exact interpretation of terms, indicators and samples. Also, the student sample is very small 
so it is difficult to make broad generalizations based on the results. Finally, the researcher knows 
the students quite well, even serving as their program advisor as they complete their graduate 
degree. This potentially increases the possibility of bias as it is difficult to completely extricate 
the role of researcher from the role of course instructor.  
 
V. Conclusions. 
 
This small-scale case study appears to support what other researchers have reported. Online 
discussion forums have great potential to encourage critical thinking and the process of 
knowledge construction. The use of specific strategies to better encourage that potential is 
critical. Finding ways to build community in the classroom setting that can be carried to the 
online setting is important. Additionally, appropriate tasks, clear guidelines and defined 
facilitator expectations also increase the likelihood of success. According to Andresen (2009), 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

71 

“Knowledge construction only occurs because of careful planning: clear, well-defined, well-
crafted questions and discussion topics. Without such planning and subsequent guidance, only 
lower levels of cognitive engagement will occur” (p. 252). The assignment of facilitation roles in 
this study showed an increase in the types of interactions believed to lead to increased 
knowledge construction. More specifically in this study, having one participant volunteer in the 
role of facilitator led to the greatest increase in knowledge construction. Keeping groups small 
appears to optimize participation also, with group sizes of four being utilized in the current 
study. “Interaction among course participants helps them apply and integrate newly gained 
knowledge in the course of engaging in group activity” (Wang, 2010, p. 832). 
 Unlike the findings in many online discussion studies, low participation was not a factor. 
Students participated far beyond the minimum requirements and expectations. Using activities in 
the classroom to encourage collaboration seemed to carry over into the online environment. Had 
students not been given such opportunity to become a learning community face-to-face, it is 
likely they would not have been so willing to participate at the same level in the online setting. 
As Pena-Shaff and Nicholls (2004) found, courses that include online discussion as a supplement 
to regular class meetings need to carefully integrate this activity into the overall course design 
“so students see it as integral to the class and not as a disassociated activity” (p. 263). An 
appropriate follow-up study might include the specific activities that are most effective in 
creating this environment.  

Similar to other studies, students clearly did not go back to follow conversation threads as 
frequently as this researcher would desire. It is quite evident by the low number of conflict, 
consensus building and assertion statements that students usually did not return to a discussion 
thread after posting a question, clarification or interpretation. This researcher believes more work 
needs to follow on methods of motivating or challenging students to a greater extent so that 
discussions are not so much reflective monologues as they are dialogical interactions. Courses 
that meet in a face-to-face structure with an online component allow for in-class work on 
clarifying these expectations.  
 Social constructivist ideas about the most productive characteristics of learning 
environments can be supported through an online discussion opportunity where students reflect 
on others’ ideas as well as their own. This is particularly true when students are required to share 
ideas in writing. According to the results of this study, the most effective instructional strategy of 
the three employed for a constructivist, collaborative approach is using a student volunteer as 
discussion facilitator. Future research might focus on other strategies not included in this study 
which might prove even more effective.  
 
Appendixes. 
Appendix A. 

Guidelines and Rubric for Online Discussion Requirements 
Educational Leadership Courses 

 
In this class, online discussions will be graded assignments.  The purpose of the online portion of the 
course is to frame and promote collaborative learning.  Active and regular participation is not only an 
important part of your responsibilities to the class but also important for you in learning new course 
content and in developing your thoughts and positions on various topics.  
 
There are three very important rules for using online discussion boards: 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

72 

1. Please remember that the culture of mutual respect that is part of our face to face time extends 
into the virtual classroom environment. 

2. Participation is required. 
3. Participation alone is not enough. Your posts require a thoughtful and meaningful approach. 

Quality does count! 
 
The total of your participation in a single discussion topic (noted as a weekly assignment) will be graded 
on a 10-point scale.   
 
Please follow this protocol for posting and responding to online discussions: 
 

a. You are expected to participate on multiple days. As this is an asynchronous discussion 
format, not everyone will be ready to post on the same day. Check your discussion board 
on at least three different days to get the full effect of your group’s discussion. 

b. You should follow the specific posting requirements noted for each week.  Make sure you 
meet the minimum requirements for the week. 

c. There is a rather fine line between a post that is too short and one that is too long. 
Whether you agree or disagree with someone else’s post, explain why with supporting 
evidence and concepts from the readings or a related experience. Include a reference, link, 
or citation when appropriate. 

d. Be organized in your thoughts and ideas. 
e. Incorporate correlations with the assigned readings or topics. 
f. Stay on topic. 
g. Provide evidence of critical, graduate-level thinking and thoughtfulness in your responses 

or interactions. Avoid summarizing. 
h. Contribute to the learning community by being creative in your approaches to topics,, 

being relevant in the presented viewpoints, and attempting to motivate the discussion. 
i. Be aware of grammar and sentence mechanics. 
j. Use proper etiquette. Being respectful is critical.  

 
A Discussion (9-10 points)  
A-level postings: 

§ Are made in a timely fashion, giving others an opportunity to respond. 
§ Are thoughtful and analyze the content or question asked. 
§ Make connections to the course content and/or other experiences. 
§ Extend discussions already taking place or pose new possibilities or opinions not previously 

voiced.   
§ Are from participants aware of the needs of the community, motivate group discussion, and present 

a creative approach to the topic. 
§ Follow the conventions of quality writing. 
§ Meet the minimum posting requirement. 

 
B Discussion (8-9 points)  
B-level postings: 

§ Are made in a timely fashion, giving others an opportunity to respond. 
§ Are thoughtful and analyze the content or question asked. 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

73 

§ Make connections to the course content and/or other experiences, but connections are unclear, not 
firmly established or are not obvious. 

§ Contain novel ideas, connections, and/or real-world application but lack depth, detail and/or 
explanation. 

§ Are from participants who interact freely and occasionally attempt to motivate discussion.  
§ Have few errors in writing conventions 
§ Meet the minimum posting requirement 

 
C Discussion (7 points)  
C-level postings: 

§ Are usually, but not always, made in a timely fashion. 
§ Are generally accurate, but the information delivered is limited. 
§ Make vague or incomplete connections between class content and posting by other students. 
§ Summarize what other students have posted and contain few novel ideas. 
§ Show marginal effort to become involved with group. 
§ Have numerous errors in writing conventions 
§ Do not meet the minimum posting requirement. 

 
D Discussion (6 points)  
D level postings:  

§ Are not made in timely fashion, if at all. 
§ Are superficial, lacking in analysis or critique. 
§ Contribute few novel ideas, connections, or applications. 
§ May veer off topic. 
§ Show little effort to participate in learning community as it develops. 
§ Does not understand the standard conventions of written English. 

 
F Discussion (0 points).   

§ Participant was rude or abusive to other course participants.  In this case, the number and quality of 
other posts is irrelevant. 

OR 
§ Participant failed to meet the basic criteria for the “D Discussion.” 

 
Appendix B. 

Coded Excerpts from Discussions   

Initial Post – Structure Discussion 

After doing a little reading I related really well to one part and wonder if you did as well. In the 
section about structural dilemmas the very last sub-category of "Irresponsible vs. Unresponsive" 
created a vision for me of the "go-to" parent or teacher. What I mean is, are you going to tell 
Mom or Dad first you failed a test, which one will be cooler with it and which one will blow up 
at you take away your phone and ground you? I feel this can happen in a school setting easily if 
one teacher is laid back on homework and allow students a few days to get stuff in verse a 
teacher who allows no days. Or a bigger one that I think we see more often is with discipline and 
behavior issues. What do some teachers allow and others do not. For example a teacher who 
writes a student up for every little thing is losing the "power" of the referral where as a teacher 
who uses the referral as a last chance still hangs onto that power and uses it when necessary? 
What are your thoughts and have you had similar situations? [Question] 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

74 

Replies to Initial Post 

This is a very good point that you brought up, and I think it to relates back to that lateral 
coordination. Not only do we need to have more cross-grade level meetings but I think we also 
need to have meetings on things such as these. I know that every teacher is going to have a 
different view on what students can get away with, as well as what administration is going to 
take as a serious offense, or taken more lightly. I think that the PBIS at the middle school is run 
very well, and I know that we are just really getting into the "good years" of it. I think that we 
can start opening up some discussions on issues such as these so that administration and teachers, 
are all on the same page as to what should be a referral and what should be let go. How many 
chances does each student get? These are good conversations to start having in teams. [Reply] 

I could not agree more with the feeling of isolation. Throughout the course of the day, I 
sometimes do not see teachers from my grade level. Information has to pass through all people 
involved. M__ your point about structure and lack of opportunity here at the middle school is 
exactly how I feel. Cross-grade level meetings would be beneficial if used properly. If nothing 
more, you interact with peers and build personal relationships. Like you stated Stephanie, it's 
important to find the common ground between the two. [Clarification] 
 

When I look at the structural assumptions, number four really jumps out at me. I think that it is 
important to be rational about things that go on in an organization, and I feel that many 
administrators are quick to forget about rationality, and want to get their agenda met and 
accomplished. Adding pressure and forgetting about rationality only stresses individuals out, and 
doesn’t accomplish much. Going off of this, I will talk about how I feel my building is run. I feel 
that in the building that I am in there is a later coordination. There are many different groups that 
are working on different things, and then we come together as a staff to report on them. We have 
school-wide improvement committee, literacy committee, etc. These groups meet on their own 
and have their own agendas, and report back to the staff as a whole to keep everyone informed 
and up-to-date. My question on this is whether or not administration (not just in my school, but 
anywhere with a similar approach) actually looks at it as a lateral approach or if they have it in 
the back of their minds that ultimately they are making the last decision? And, how as an 
administrator do you come to certain conclusions without taking it to a vertical approach if 
groups aren’t getting the outcomes that you would like them to? [Clarification] 

When I think about the structural dilemmas, the first one that really got my attention was the 
Excessive Autonomy Versus Excessive Interdependence. When I look at the building I am in, I 
feel very much isolated from other teachers. I feel that having cross- grade level meetings would 
help this feeling a lot. The big question that I come too is when are you being too isolated? And 
when are you coming together too much? As an administrator I think it is important to find the 
common ground between the two and is something that should have thought put into it in an 
organization. [Clarification] 

Glad you feel valued. That's a big key to keeping younger staff like you here. I think the 
administration is making a much better effort to give positive feedback and thanks to staff. 
However, I feel like it's usually when staff brings some kind of positive PR to the district that the 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

75 

administration seems to notice. I think so much of the day to day things some of us do that go 
above and beyond go unnoticed. Curious what others thoughts are on that... [Reflection] 
 
Initial Post – Human Resource Discussion 

In my short career thus far as a teacher/coach at MHS, I have little evidence to argue that people 
are not the greatest asset in my workplace. Opinions about this might be different amongst other 
staff members, but for me personally, I have been made to feel that I am an important asset in 
our building. [Clarification] 

Replies to Initial Post 

Our Physical Education Department at the middle school consists of me and two other 
professionals. In the last year and a half, the three of us have overhauled our entire curriculum 
hoping to create a quality program for our students. Many of the changes to our program would 
not have been possible without the support and trust of our administrators. Additionally, our 
Physical Education Department recently had an article published in Teaching Today, the 
statewide educational newsletter for Wisconsin. In the article we discussed methods we use to 
incorporate literacy into our Physical Education classes. Shortly after the article was published, 
we received an email from our administrators thanking us for our hard work and commitment to 
our student’s education. By sending a simple email saying thanks, our administrators provided 
confirmation that what we do is meaningful and we truly are assets in our workplace. “When 
individuals find satisfaction and meaning in work, the organization profits from effective use of 
their talent and energy. But when satisfaction and meaning are lacking, individuals withdraw, 
resist, or rebel” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 164). [Clarification] 

I definitely agree with your opinion that promotion within education is less practical in 
comparison to being promoted in a business environment. In education we know that there are 
great teachers, some with wonderful leadership qualities, which never pursue administration. I 
believe many because of the time and money needed for an additional degree/certification. In 
result, promotion within education isn’t always the result of quality performance, but instead, the 
result of who is able to afford it vs. who is not. [Clarification] 

Initial Post - Organizations as Cultures 

I feel as though M___ High School tries to produce a positive school culture. We have annual 
traditions such as Homecoming (spirit week), Winterfest, Spring Fling, and graduation. Students 
and staff also receive purple t-shirts at the beginning in the first week of school and wear them 
with pride throughout the year. However, I often feel as though it's the SAME teachers who 
make an effort to participate in all of these activities. I can't recall the number of times I've heard 
a veteran teacher say something along the lines of "it's the new teacher's turn to do this..." I try to 
attend various athletic and extra-curricular events or judge for Student Senate competitions. At 
the Winterfest assembly this year I judged with ONE other teacher because no one else 
could/would help. During this year's corporate challenge we forfeited an entire evening of events 
due to lack of participation. It's frustrating to feel as though the same people take on the majority 
of all the tasks. [Clarification] 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

76 

Replies to Initial Post 

The truth is, we ALL have obligations. I know that while I may be considered a "younger" 
teacher, I have two children, a husband who works long hours and often travels, work a second 
job, advise three clubs, plan a trip to France every other year, took several graduate courses this 
year and am pursuing an additional master's degree, all in addition to my four (next year five) 
preps while most teachers have two or three. Yet I still manage to find time to make it to a few 
athletic events, extra-curricular activities, or academic nights (awards, graduation, etc.). So I 
wouldn't say I have more time, but maybe more energy. Hopefully that lasts! [Clarification] 

I respect that many teachers, new and veteran, have obligations, commitments, or other priorities. 
However, younger teachers look to veteran teachers to lead by example. That's typically why 
they are chosen as mentors. The bottom line is there's always a reason not to do something. As a 
group of individuals pursuing a degree in administration is it not our goal to lead by example? 
Would we not look to our future employees to do the same? Is an administrator given a choice 
not to attend extra-curriculars because of a variety of other obligations? Food for thought. 
[Question] 

[Full transcript sets are available from author upon request]  
 

References 
 
An, Y. J., & Frick, T. (2006). Student perceptions of asynchronous computer-mediated 
communication in face-to-face courses. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 
article 5.  
 
An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on 
students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53, 749-
760. 
 
Andresen, M.A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, 
assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249-257. 
 
Baran, E., & Correia, A-P. (2009). Student-led facilitation strategies in online discussions. 
Distance Education, 30(3), 339-361. 
 
Cronbach, L.J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American 
Psychologist, 30, 116-127. 
 
Dennen, V.P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online 
group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281-297. 
 
DeWever, B., VanKeer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2010). Roles as structuring tool in 
online discussion groups: The differential impact of different roles on social knowledge 
construction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 516-523. 
 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

77 

De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2009). Structuring asynchronous 
discussion groups: The impact of role support and self-assessment on students’ levels of 
knowledge construction through social negotiation. Journal of computer Assisted Learning, 25, 
177-188.  
 
DeWever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to 
analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & 
Education, 46, 6-28. 
Gilbert, P.K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful 
discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5-18.  
 
Hannafin, M.J., & Kim, M.C. (2003). In search of a future: A critical analysis of research on 
web-based teaching and learning. Instructional Science, 31(4), 347-351. 
 
Harasim, L. (1993). Collaborating in cyberspace: Using computer conferences as a group 
learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 119-130. 
 
Harasim, L.M. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual  
amplification. In L.M. Harasim (Ed.). Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 
39-64). New York: Praeger. 
 
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A.R. Kaye (Ed.) Collaborative 
learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117-136). Berlin: Springer. 
 
Hew, K.F., Cheung, W.S., & Ng, C.S.L. (2009). Student contribution in asynchronous 
discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38, 571-
606. 
 
Hillman, D.C.A. (1999). A new method for analyzing patters of interaction. The American 
Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 37-47. 
 
Jonassen, D., Davison, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Bannan Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism 
and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance 
Education, 9(2), 7-26. 
 
Mason, R. (1992). Evaluation methodologies for computer conferencing applications. In A.R. 
Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 105-116). Berlin: 
Springer.  
 
Merriam, S.B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (Rev. ed.). 
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  
 
Ng, C.S.L., & Cheung, W.S. (2007). Comparing face to face, tutor led discussion, and online 
discussion in the classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), 455-469. 
 



Gibson, K.M. 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2013. 
jotlt.indiana.edu 

78 

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the 
virtual classroom. San Francisco: Wiley.  
 
Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W., & Gay, G. (2001). An epistemological framework for analyzing 
student interactions in computer-mediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive 
Learning Research 12, 41-68. 
 
Pena-Shaff, J. & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in 
computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 12, 243-256. 
 
Roblyer, M.D., & Wiencke, W.R. (2004). Exploring the interaction equation: Validating a rubric 
to assess and encourage interaction in distance courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning 
Networks, 8(4). 
 
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational 
Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5-18. 
 
Rourke, L, & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of 
Interactive Media in Education, 1(1), 1-21. 
 
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in 
asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71. 
 
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2004). Fostering knowledge construction in university students 
through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46, 349-370. 
 
Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond 
quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, 49-70. 
 
Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2003). Investigating the impact of computer conferencing: Content 
analysis as a manageable research tool. Interact, integrate, impact: Proceedings of the 20th 
annual conference of the australasian society for computers in learning in tertiary education, 
Adelaide, 7-10 December 2003. (Retrieved December 12, 2012), from 
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide03/docs/pdf/495.pdf. 
 
Wang, M. (2010). Online collaboration and offline interaction between students using 
asynchronous tools in blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 
830-846. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


