Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 174Online and Blended LearningOnline Learning and AnalyticsDigital Communication and Language

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patterns of Interaction in a Computer Conference Transcript

Open access
Fahy, Patrick J., Crawford, Gail, Ally, Mohamed·2001·The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
DOI 10.19173/irrodl.v2i1.36
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

An analysis of the interaction patterns in an online conference from a distance education graduate course was conducted, using an approach that focused on the transcript's interactional and structural features. A new tool for transcript analysis, the TAT (Transcript Analysis Tool), was used to analyze interactional features, while structural elements suggested by social network theory were examined. Analysis of the patterns of interaction in the conference showed interaction was variable, and that while all participants were engaged, intensity and persistence of participation were unequal among individual participants in several ways. The TAT showed the proportions of five major types of sentences in the transcript, corresponding to different modes of interaction (questions, statements, reflections, engaging comments, and quotations/citations). The findings showed that the TAT seemed to relate usefully to other work in this area, and that social network principles were valuable in the analysis of conference interaction.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.19173/irrodl.v2i1.36

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Abrami, P. & Bures, E. (1996). Computer-supported collaborative learning and distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 37-42.
  2. Anderson, T. & Garrison, D. R. (1995). Transactional issues in distance educa- tion: The impact of design in audioteleconferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 27-45.
  3. Burt, R. (1983). Distinguishing relational content. In R. Burt & M. Minor, Applied network analysis (pp. 35 -74). London: Sage Publications.
  4. Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 347-361).
  5. Cook, K. (1982). Network structures from an exchange perspective. In P. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis, (pp. 177 - 199). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
  6. Cookson, P. S. & Chang, Y. (1995). The Multidimensional Audioconferencing Classification System (MACS). American Journal of Distance Education, 9(3), 18-36.
  7. Fahy, P. J. (2001a). Addressing some common problems in transcript analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (1)2. Re- trieved May 30, 2001: [http://www.irrodl.org/content/v1.2/research. html\#Fahy]
  8. Fahy, P. J. (2001b). Epistolary and expository interaction patterns in a com- puter conference transcript. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  9. Fahy, P. J., Crawford, G., Ally, M., Cookson, P., Keller, V. & Prosser, F. (2000). The development and testing of a tool for analysis of computer mediated conferencing transcripts. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 46(1), 85-88.
  10. Fulford, C. P. & Zhang, S. (1993). Perception of interaction: The critical pre- dictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8-21.
  11. Garrison, D. R. (1989). Understanding distance education: A framework for the future. New York: Routledge.
  12. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
  13. Gibson, C. C. (1996). Collaborative learning in action via computer medi- ated conferencing. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Dis- tance Teaching and Learning: Designing for Active Learning, (pp. 121-125). Madison: University of Wisconsin.
  14. Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C. & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global on-line debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examin- ing social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431.
  15. Haughey, M. & Anderson, T. (1998). Networked learning: The pedagogy of the internet. Montreal: Chenelière/McGraw-Hill.
  16. Herring, S. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S. C. Her- ring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication (pp. 81-106). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
  17. Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models, Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory. (2nd ed., pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  18. Kadushin, C. (1982). Social density and mental health. In P. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis, (pp. 147 -158). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
  19. Kanuka, H. & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74.
  20. Keller, V. (1999). Adaptation and application of a transcript analysis tool to an- alyze a computer-mediated communication (CMC) distance education course transcript. Unpublished master's thesis, Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta.
  21. Levin, J., Kim, H. & Riel, M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic message networks. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education (pp. 185 -213). New York: Praeger.
  22. Morris, R.M., Mitchell, N. & Bell, M. (1999). Student use of computer mediated communication in an Open University level 1 course: Academic or social? Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 99(2). Retrieved May 30, 2001: [http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/99/2/]
  23. One-third of workday on computer, study says. (2000, February 26). The Edmonton Journal, p. I10.
  24. Ridley, C. & Avery, A. (1979). Social network influence on the dyadic relation- ship. In R. Burgess, & T. Huston, (Eds.). Social exchange in developing relationships. (pp. 223-246). New York: Academic Press.
  25. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R. & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing so- cial presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71.
  26. Rytina, S. (1982). Structural constraints on intergroup contact. In P. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis, (pp. 81 -100). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
  27. Saba, F. (2000). Research in distance education: A status report. Interna- tional Review of Research in Open And Distance Learning (1)1. Retrieved December 21, 2000: [http://www.irrodl.org/content/v1.1/farhad.pdf]
  28. Wellman, B. (1982). Studying personal communities. In P. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 61 -80). London: Sage Publications.
  29. Witte, S. (1983). Topic structure and revision: An exploratory study. College Composition and Communications, 34(3), 313-341.
  30. Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. In Proceedings of Selected Research and De- velopment Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Indianapolis, IN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 849) Citation Format
  31. Fahy, Patrick J., Crawford, Gail & Ally, Mohamed (July, 2001) Patterns of Interaction in a Computer Conference Transcript. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning: 2, 1. http://www.icaap.org/iuicode?149.2.1.4

Cited by

See all 174

Metadata

Authors
Fahy, P. J., Crawford, G., & Ally, M.
Venue
The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
Publisher
Athabasca University Press
Published
2001-07-01
Volume
2
Issue
1
ISSN
1492-3831 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.19173/irrodl.v2i1.36
OpenAlex
W2134077948
Cited by
174
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 13
FWCI
56.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • AUSpace (Athabasca University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Érudit (Université de Montréal) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Digital Communication and Language
Keywords
online forums, computer-mediated communication, interaction patterns, transcript analysis, social network analysis, participation, distance education, graduate courses, sentence types

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.