A Case for Student Communication in Online Classes

Read-only participants: a case for student communication in online classes
L. Nagela*, A.S. Blignautb and J.C. Cronje´ c aUniversity of Pretoria, South Africa; bNorth-West University, South Africa; cCape Peninsula
University of Technology, South Africa
(Received 5 April 2007; final version received 25 May 2007)
The establishment of an online community is widely held as the most important prerequisite for successful course completion and depends on an interaction between a peer group and a facilitator. Beaudoin reasoned that online students sometimes engage and learn even when not taking part in online discussions. The context of this study was an online course on web-based education for a Masters degree in computer-integrated education at the University of Pretoria. We used a mixed methodology approach to investigate how online activity and discussion postings relate to learning and course completion. We also investigated how student collaborative behaviour and integration into the community related to success.
Although the quantitative indices measured showed highly significant differences between the stratifications of student performance, there were notable exceptions unexplained by the trends. The class harboured a well-functioning online learning community. We also uncovered the discontent students in the learning community felt for invisible students who were absent without reason from group assignments or who made shallow and insufficient contributions. Student online visibility and participation can take many forms, like read-only participants who skim over or deliberately harvest others’ discussions. Other students can be highly visible without contributing. Students who anticipate limited access due to poor connectivity, high costs or other reasons can manage their log-in time effectively and gain maximum benefit. Absent and seldom contributing students risk forsaking the benefits of the virtual learning community. High quality

References: Barab, S.A., Thomas, M.K., & Merrill, H. (2001). Online learning: From information dissemination to fostering collaboration Beaudoin, M.F. (2002). Learning or lurking? Tracking the ‘‘invisible’’ online student. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 147–155. Bernard, R.M., Brauer, A., Abrami, P.C., & Surkes, M. (2004). The development of a questionnaire for predicting online learning achievement Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413–426. Carr, T., Cox, G., Eden, A., & Hanslo, M. (2004). From peripheral to full participation in a blended trade bargaining simulation Clark, R.E., & Feldon, D.F. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning: Effective strategies for moderators Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004). Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two blended courses Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education Johnson, C.S. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 45–60. Johnson, S.D., Suriya, C., Yoon, S.W., Berrett, J.V., & La Fleur, J. (2002). Team development and group processes of virtual learning teams Kettner-Polley, R.B. (2005). Virtual professor þ virtual student ¼ real education. Retrieved January 18, 2005, from http://iiswinprd03.petersons.com/distancelearning/code/articles/ Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, Klemm, W.R. (1998). Eight ways to get students more engaged in online conferences. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the Miller, M.D., Rainer, R.K., & Corley, J.K. (2003). Predictors of engagement and participation in an on-line course Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, gen-Xers & millennials. Understanding the new students. Prammanee, N. (2003). Understanding participation in online courses: A case study of perceptions of online interaction Rovai, A.P., & Barnum, K.T. (2003). On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning Roycroft, T.R., & Anantho, S. (2003). Internet subscription in Africa: Policy for a dual digital divide Schreck, V. (2006). It takes a virtual village: Practical strategies for improving online learning retention rates Retrieved December 22, 2006, from www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/REC/pubs/NSF97-153/ START.htm Shavelson, R.J., & Huang, L. (2003). Responding responsibly to the frenzy to assess learning in higher education Sutton, L.A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness online: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J.C. Swan, K., Shea, P.J., Fredericksen, E.E., Pickett, A.M., & Pelz, W.E. (2000). Course design factors influencing the success of online learning Williams, B. (2004). Participation in on-line courses—how essential is it? Educational Technology & Society, 7(2), 1–8.