![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Current views of literacy have expanded to encompass how individuals in sociocultural systems make meaning as they “read” and “write” their world. From this view, the work of students involved in pursuing deeper understandings as they discuss course concepts is a literacy act. This study focused on the inquiry and questioning moves of graduate students as they participated in nine online classroom discussions about course concepts. A coding scheme adapted from several researchers interested in inquiry and knowledge co-construction was applied to the students’ comments posted in synchronous online discussion. Findings indicated that students used various inquiry moves to engage actively with course ideas, with some moves more popular than others, and with some students using a wider variety of moves than others. Although the most common moves were of those reacting to others’ comments with an interpretation, supporting evidence, or more thoroughly explaining a previously shared idea, threads often developed into more sophisticated inquiry exchanges through “inferences” and “critical evaluations.” Implications are offered for the use of an inquiry lens on the contributions of students involved in online classroom discussion as a way to highlight students’ active, meaningful knowledge construction.
References
Section:
|
Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In Abell, S. K., Lederman, N. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar | |
|
Boyd, M. P. (2015). Relationship between teacher questioning and student talk in one elementary ELL classroom. Journal of Literacy Research, 47, 370–404. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Boyd, M. P., Kneller, S. (2009). The 42nd crochet: Getting students hooked into a literacy community. The Reading Teacher, 62, 434–441. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Applegate, B., Skjold, B., Undreiu, A.…Gobert, J. D. (2010). Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28, 81–96. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Corbin, J., Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
de Jesus, H. P., Moreira, A. C. (2009). The role of students’ questions in aligning teaching, learning, and assessment: A case study of undergraduate sciences. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 193–208. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Dodson, M. M. (2000). Monologic and dialogic conversations: How preservice teachers socially construct knowledge through oral and computer-mediated classroom discourse. Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 49, 137–152. Google Scholar | |
|
Florit, E., Roch, M., Levorato, C. (2011). Listening text comprehension of explicit and implicit information in preschoolers: The role of verbal and inferential skills. Discourse Processes, 48, 119–138. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 7–23. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Garrison, D. R., Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 157–172. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Groenke, S. L., Paulus, T. (2007). The role of teacher questioning in promoting dialogic literary inquiry in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40, 141–164. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1072–1088. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Mercer, N. (2008). The seed of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33–59. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Miyake, N. (1986). Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding. Cognitive Science, 10, 151–177. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 527–565. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Ng’ambi, D., Brown, I. (2009). Intended and unintended consequences of student use of an online questioning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 316–328. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Park, J. H., Schallert, D. L., Sanders, A. K. Z., Williams, K. M., Seo, E., Yu, L.…Knox, M. C. (2015). Does it matter if the teacher is there? A teacher’s contribution to emerging patterns of interactions in online classroom discussions. Computers and Education, 82, 315–328. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Pedaste, M., Maeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T.…Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Purdy, J. (2008). Inviting conversation: Meaningful talk about texts for English language learners. Literacy, 42, 44–51. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Rourke, L., Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 23, 19–48. Google Scholar | |
|
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., Haverkamp-Hermans, G. G. N., Bogner, F. X., Kretschmer, T., Stracke, C. M.…Polymatidis, D. (2015). A narrative approach to studying the diversification of inquiry learning across instructional settings. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 11, 184–228. Google Scholar | |
|
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–283. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In Sawyer, K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Schallert, D. L., Lissi, M. R., Reed, J. H., Dodson, M. M., Benton, R. E., Hopkins, L. F. (1996). How coherence is socially constructed in oral and written classroom discussions of reading assignments. In Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Hinchman, K. (Eds.), Forty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 471–483). Chicago, IL: The National Reading Conference. Google Scholar | |
|
Schrire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science, 32, 475–502. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 259–287. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Vogler, J. S., Schallert, D. L., Park, Y., Song, K., Chiang, Y.-H. V., Jordan, M. E.…Sanders, A. J. Z. (2013). A microgenetic analysis of classroom discussion practices: How literacy processes intermingle in the negotiation of meaning in an online discussion. Journal of Literacy Research, 45, 211–239. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Zhu, E. P. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34, 451–480. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
