Online Discourse Patterns: Building an Instructional Framework for Designing Educational Discourses on Networks

Online Discourse Patterns:

Building an Instructional Framework for Designing Educational Discourses on Networks

Junghyun An
jan2@uiuc.edu
Curriculum and Instruction
College of Education
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

James A. Levin
jalevin@uiuc.edu
Educational Psychology
College of Education
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Abstract

With an increasing recognition of the educational implications of the social dynamics among learners and social relations between students and an instructor, one of the most critical and practical questions for online teachers is how to design and implement instruction to support learners' social interaction and collaboration on networks. A literature review of telecommunication studies shows the need for developing a new instructional framework for online course design that is compatible with constructive learning and teaching. In analyzing archived messages from web bulletin board discussions of two graduate classes, which commonly aimed at students' active learning, this research found six major patterns of online educational discourse -- inquiry-based discourse, information sharing, reading reflection, analytical evaluation, argumentative discourse, and project-based discourse -- which differed in terms of their educational purpose, sequential structure, and central features. This study also investigated how the instructional structures functioned in shaping these patterns of students' online social discourse and their learning. The six major patterns of educational discourse were initially designed and guided through the sequential setting of instructor's opening message, main discourse, and transition. This study compared the instructional structure that was found in asynchronous communication to the instructional sequencing patterns that Mehan (1979) found from his analysis of the traditional classroom-based instruction.

I. Introduction

Learning is not an isolated individual cognitive process, but a dynamic and complex individual learner's intrapsychological transformation of interaction and social relations among the members of a learning community. Accordingly, instructors or curriculum designers need to understand what kind of knowledge students acquire through their social interaction and communication with each other in educational settings. This conceptualization of the relationship between knowledge construction and social interaction becomes a significant issue when new class communication technologies are involved. Studies on educational telecommunication have also addressed that computer mediated communication has its own distinct features and patterns of electronic social interaction, dissimilar to classroom-based, face-to-face (FTF) communication (Quinn, Mehan, Black, & Levin, 1983; Black, Levin, Mehan, & Quinn, 1983; Harasim, 1990; Haavind, 2000). These studies commonly claim that electronic discourses, generating new social dynamics, require new instructional organization and strategies in order to promote students' active learning. Extending the notion of the need for conceptualizing the new social patterns of online communication, this study attempted to find the major patterns of educational discourses occurring in real online classes, and explored how instructors can prompt and organize online discussions in the context of this categorization of the new electronic discourse patterns.

II. Theoretical Background

According to studies of education online, in comparison with oral communication, which is linear, time-sequential, and spontaneous, asynchronous online communication has multidirectional, thematic, and reflective characteristics (Quinn, Mehan, Levin, & Black, 1983; Black, Levin, Mehan, & Black 1983; Harasim, 1991; Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff, 1995; Duffy, Dueber, & Hawley, 1998). These studies looked at the ways that human interaction in learning environments often includes complex and multiple modalities of discourse rather than the sequential patterns of discourse which people are accustomed to in face-to-face interaction. Moreover, their findings show that the types of communication media people use can shape the primary patterns of human interaction in the online context. For instance, by examining and visualizing patterns of email conversations that were shared at a university, Quinn, Mehan, Levin, and Black (1983) found that the sequential topic transition and frequent turn-taking of oral communication did not appear in asynchronous written communication. They found instead that non-real time communication is organized in multiple threads of discussion topics. The result of their study differentiated patterns of computer-mediated communication from Mehan's earlier analysis of face-to-face, classroom interactions.

Mehan (1979) described how classroom interaction was sequentially and hierarchically organized by analyzing videotapes of face-to-face classroom interactions. In his analysis, a classroom lesson is composed of opening, instruction, and closing sessions, and the main instructional session is constituted of the fundamental sequences of initiation, reply, and evaluation (IRE). The three basic components of classroom-based pedagogical interaction need to be sequentially grouped, and cooperatively accomplished by the participants (students and the teacher). This instructional structure shows the traditional pattern of teacher-led classroom communication: teacher-initiation followed by students' search for a correct answer, and direct teacher evaluation on student responses.

By contrast, Quinn, Mehan, Levin, and Black (1983) found that the patterns of electronic communication consisted primarily of the two components of initiation and reply with little overt evaluation. Their study concluded that computer-mediated communication enables multiple sequences of discourse in which participants can engage in more than one topic of discussion simultaneously. In this pattern of interaction, participants also experience a longer time interval before receiving others' responses.

Along the line of distinction between the mediated and face-to-face interactions, Duffy, Dueber, and Hawley (1998) asserted that electronic collaborative learning requires an advanced communication structure supporting multiple directions of students' idea generation and discussion. Their study suggested that effective online education needs to combine two different communication structures: a linear structure for idea-generation, and a hierarchical structure for issue-based discussion. Harasim (1991) also claims that in order to help individuals' effective knowledge building through computer-mediated interaction, it is necessary to develop adequate tools in computer conferencing systems, which support not only divergent idea generating, but also convergent idea-linking and restructuring activities. Both studies conclude that an advanced design of communication media and an effective structure of online instruction should evolve in order to meet diverse needs and patterns of social interaction for teaching and learning on networks.

The studies of Duffy et al. (1998) and Harasim (1991) focused on the features of designing communication interface and online instructional structure in relation to the essential patterns of social interaction for learning. Haavind (2000) explored new instructional strategies for online educators to design and moderate computer-mediated communication, concluding that face-to-face teaching strategies do not effectively work for electronic learning. In her account, electronic interfaces blur the function of a teacher's leadership in discussions, whereas in a face-to-face classroom situation, teachers can immediately redirect or elicit students' responses. Moreover, if online instructors attempt to elicit students' sense of direction and focused dialogues by providing brief summaries or clarifying comments, students' perspectives in their discussions tend to be increasingly restricted. Students do not actively participate in their own meaning making through rich online conversations. In her attempt to resolve this difficulty to lead an online discussion, Haavind suggests a strategy in which online program moderators provide students purposefully with vague questions and non-judgmental comments. She concludes that only with this strategy can instructors keep online dialogues opened to multiple perspectives.

An emerging theme from the review of these studies of computer-mediated communication in education is that Mehan's IRE sequencing and instructional framework that describe the traditional classroom interaction does not support online social dynamics as well as instructional methods not only because of the online instruction incorporating student active learning, but also because of the multiple modalities of asynchronous electronic communication. The results of these studies all convince us that designing and implementing online instruction require new instructional organizations and teaching strategies that can support the distinct features of online social interaction. To develop an online instructional framework promoting multiplicity in student interaction as well as learning, in our study we first asked whether we could define the major patterns of online educational dialogues, in distinction from the traditional, face-to-face interaction in a classroom. Our study also explored how the defined patterns of online interaction in education can be associated with instructional structures and teaching methods. The expected value of this study is a new online instructional framework that supports multiple patterns of online discourse in learning environments, and that also gives guidance to online instructors for their design and implementation of online lessons.

III. Methodology & Class Description

In search of patterns of online interaction in education, we observed and interpretatively analyzed online class discussions of two educational psychology graduate courses at UIUC. One class, "Computer Uses in Education" (CUE), which consisted of two groups of students, one on campus and the other off campus, was offered during fall semester, 2000. The other class, "Technology & Educational Reforms" (TER), which was composed of only online students, was taught in the summer semester, 2000. During the spring, 2001, on the basis of our initial analysis of asynchronous communications among the CUE teacher and students with the class web bulletin board, we continued analyzing the patterns of class interactions among the TER teacher and students from the archives of their electronic postings.

The students in the online group were K-12 or higher education teachers and instructional technology coordinators. They worked in pursuit of an online Master's degree of education focusing on curriculum, technology, and education reform (CTER). The online group in CUE (CTER3) started in fall, 2000, while the other group in TER (CTER2) started in fall, 1999.

Both classes used a web-based discussion board mainly for guiding students to accomplish course projects and readings in relation with their instructional objectives. For instance, students in the CUE class discussed and participated in designing critical applications of educational technology, whereas students in TER discussed current educational reform topics reflecting the objectives of the school districts in which they were already engaged. In the CUE class, the group on campus, which consisted of nine students, had weekly class meetings in classrooms, while the one off campus, sixteen students, had a synchronous conferencing session every week during the course. Online students in the TER class also had weekly synchronous meetings on computer networks. Some of the TER students met face to-face outside the class in order to accomplish their small group assignments.

IV. Main Patterns of Online Discourse

With respect to the previous telecommunication studies in education, Mehan's IRE sequence and instructional organization for the design of traditional, classroom-based interaction cannot help online instructors understand on how to design an effective structure of online instruction. His instructional framework does not fit online discussions. The type of communication medium significantly influences the general patterns of social interaction. However, it is also important to provide rich explanations about communication methods used and designs of instructional programs with the medium in order to develop an alternative epistemological framework.

As a result of analyzing both CUE and TER class interactions, our research found six main patterns of online discourse that were most frequently used for learner-centered, educational practices. The six types are inquiry-based discourse, information sharing, reading reflection, analytical evaluation, argumentative discourse, and project-based discourse. Each pattern had its own educational goal, sequential structure, and essential features.

1) Inquiry-based Discourse: Q --> S (or Ref)

Provocative questions (Q) were raised by students or instructors, and then others provided suggestions (S) or reflections (Ref) to explore their own meanings of knowledge. The sequence of this pattern of discourse varied significantly depending on students' interests, needs, and experiences, but the instructor could also redirect the direction of discussion or reading reflection by raising specific questions to students. For instance, the CUE instructor requested students to consider how the new taxonomies of educational technology would help or hinder teachers' actual applications of technology in terms of students' own experiences.

From "Bruce & Levin Papers", in CUE, fall 2000.

CUE-I: . . . I certainly agree with you that some things remain useful, even over the longer time since Dewey created this four part distinction earlier in this century. Does the four part taxonomy that Chip developed from Dewey help you think about the range of uses of technology in your teaching? (Q)

S1: Response to challenge: In regards to the integration of the four part taxonomy in my classroom, I feel it will most certainly help because currently I believe that I am using media as communication much more in comparison to media to extend the senses, or as a tool for expression. I had never used the taxonomy in my teachings. However, after seeing the various ways that this technology can be utilized, I believe my mode of instructing will change. (Ref)

S2: I agree with you 100%. I also had never used the taxonomy in my classroom, let alone even know it exist. After reading the paper, I agreed that I also used media for communication and expression more than the other two subcategories. I believe the reason for this is because technology that seems to be available to teachers falls into these groups. . . . (Ref)

Herein, students' responses to the instructor's question were not judged by correctness or incorrectness. Rather, this educational conversation drove to students' decision-making and cognitive development by associating the new concept with their experiences. In this pattern of discourse, it was important that the discussion participants did not expect one single answer to a question so that students and the teacher could explore various possible viewpoints on a new theoretical system, listening to others' experiences or opinions. In our observation of both classes, the pattern of students' explorations of ideas on the teacher-raised questions, instead of student-raised inquiries, was most commonly found.

2) Information Sharing: Q --> Info

In comparison with the provocative, inquiry-based discourse, information sharing occurred on the basis of the existing knowledge that questioners or answerers already had. In this category, two possible situations exist: information seeking and information probing. Information seeking is the case that one person asks another a question (Q), assuming that the other knows the answer (Info), whereas information probing is the situation that a person asks another person a question (Q) in order to check up whether the other knows the information (Info).

For example, the CUE class students were to raise their own questions regarding digital video use in education in order to get advice from a video technology expert who the instructor brought to the class:

From "Digital Video," in CUE, fall 2000.

S3: I found myself thinking -- how can teachers find the time to make videos on top of designing lessons, grading paperwork, working with students, and all the extra stipend jobs they may have to do. Do you think it is feasible to also make videos. I see the benefits of it, but don't see where the time will come from. (Q)

V-Expert: You raise an excellent point about whether teachers have the time to devote to producing videos. It is not an easy question to answer. But, I have worked with many teachers who have successfully integrated digital video as a learning tool. What I know works is that. . . . (Info)

Diversity in participants' knowledge and their readiness for sharing of information and collaboration were the most critical factors for creating rich information sharing dialogues.

3) Reading Reflection: Info (or Ref) --> Ref

Reading reflection (Ref) involved individual students' most deliberate expressions of thoughts regarding course readings (Info) or in response to their classmates' messages (Ref). The significant pedagogical benefit of this reflection discourse was to allow students to link new inputs freely to their personal knowledge, experiences, or belief systems. Exchanges of personal reflections (Ref --> Ref) could also promote individual students' cognitive developments and expansions of views.

The following example shows that a student (S4) related a brief description of reading to his or her experience teaching in public school, and the other student (S5) reflected his or her own experiences with another school district in response to the previous posting:

From Week 3, in TER, summer 2000.

S4: This chapter discusses educational reforms and the role of technology within those reforms. The information presented in this article hit home on many levels when I thought about the current reform movements and the use of technology throughout my district. For years, my district was behind the times when it came to technology. . . . (Ref)

S5: How sad that you have a building of Macs and only a few people who know how to use them. Does your building or district have a technology coordinator? You mentioned a few training sessions were offered but not well attended. Did the potential participants have any incentive to take the class? In our district we have a 120 hour training course taken during the summer. The teachers get paid to take the class and often get a computer and software out of the deal. It seems to work well to dangle a carrot. . . . (Ref)

This pattern of discourse was frequently found in both classes. Students easily began posting their messages on the Web bulletin board by participating in reading reflection activities.

4) Analytical Evaluation: Info (or E) --> E

An advanced form of reading reflection included students' evaluations (E) of messages or other readings (Info). Students judged the content of messages, according to criteria of usefulness, validity, reliance, parsimony, significance, or public preference. As shown in the following example, each evaluation message consisted of a student's own judgment and supporting ideas or examples:

From Week 2, in TER, summer 2000.

S10: Henry Becker stated there has to be a "need for reform. Unless people understand that there is a need for reform then the mechanisms of reform are irrelevant." This is a very true statement. Teachers can sit on committees whose primary goal is to institute some type of change, but unless they feel a need to implement change, they are simply taking up space. Teachers must buy-in and take ownership of the impending changes before they will ever fully and whole-heartedly be instituted. . . . (E)

S11: Your comments about Means approach to reform fit in with the constructivist approach. Her approach requires the individual teacher to "construct" his or her take on the question of what does their school need. Even more basic is that she asks the teachers. Many times building leaders (I would include teacher members of site-based management teams.) forget to ask the teachers. . . . (E)

According to our class observations, specific criteria for students' analyses of readings were not often provided by the teachers. Instead, students developed their own judgmental criteria on the basis of their course learning. For instance, the CUE teacher asked each student to pick an exemplary educational web site from his or her own analytical viewpoint:

From "Exemplary educational web sites", in CUE, fall 2000.

CUE-I: Find an exemplary educational web site (a web site with the goal of helping somebody learn something). Post in WebBoard its name, URL, a short description, and why you think it is exemplary (support your argument based on either the readings or other sources). . . .

S3: My exemplary site is for asynchronous science activities that were created by teachers in an ISU workshop funded by the Eisenhower Grant in June. We will be adding more at the end of this month. Currently, there are 40 problem-based science lessons available. . . . (E)

Participating in this activity, on one hand, students shared their web evaluation experiences or resources with peer students. On the other hand, the teacher probed what kinds of analytical criteria students built for evaluating educational resources on the Internet. Unseen in the web bulletin board discussions that we observed, the instructor's formal assessments on students' Web postings were kept away from others' access by using another evaluation software. Instead, in electronic collaborative learning, more positive and constructive feedback of student peers and the teacher on students' messages seemed to guide a productive group discussion.

5) Argumentative Discourse: Pro-Con --> Pro-Con

One of the most advanced patterns of educational discourse was student debate (Pro-Con --> Pro-Con) on certain current issues or controversies. It promoted students' understanding of the complexity of the discussion topic, and their enhancement of commitment to cooperative learning. For instance, the CUE instructor asked students to respond to his vision of education in the year 2020 as well as the classmates' reflections after reading some relevant articles. While exchanging messages, students naturally came to interesting debates on various sub-topics surrounding the major issue:

From "2020 Vision" in CUE, fall 2000.

S7: I haven't heard or read much speculation about the form of education in the brave new world of 2020. I think that students will use laptop computers which will access the internet remotely. CD-Roms will replace books. Books written before 1980 will only be found in museums called "libraries" and will deteriorate to dust over the following centuries. . . . (Pro-Con)

S9: In response to [S7]'s vision, I don't see books ever becoming totally obsolete. There will be always be those people who will cherish them and love to curl up with them. . . . We have had cars for now long and how many people choose not to have or use one. I think we will always see those that want to hang on to simplistic life styles. (Pro-Con)

S7: . . . I love good books and certainly hope that I'm wrong. . . . I think we are being overwhelmed by technology. There was a book review in today's (Sunday 9/3) Chicago Tribune. . . . (Pro-Con)

As a result of their class debates on the vision of education and technology, students developed their own critical perspectives, and showed their constructive meanings of the discussion in their later integrative reports. In addition, as a few students mentioned on the Web bulletin board, they really seemed to enjoy online discussions through the experience. However, such students' voluntary debate was an exceptional occasion that did not occur in other class interactions of both CUE and TER classes throughout the rest of the semesters.

6) Project-based Discourse: P (or Rpt) --> E (S or Ref)

Project-based learning was the main pedagogy in both classes; we observed this pattern of interaction particularly in two online conferencing sessions -- "major project proposal" (P) and "major project report" (Rpt) -- of each class. Throughout the course, students had to present their project proposals (P) and progress reports (Rpt) that were followed by assessments (E) from the instructor as well as their classmates. These responses to students' project reports avoided being judgmental, and included reflective feedbacks (Ref) or rather constructive suggestions (S).

In the example of project-based discourse, a student teacher posted his or her project proposal of designing an instructional web site for his or her own class:

From "Major project proposal", in CUE, fall 2000.

S5: I would like to implement a homepage for my classroom. This would be an additional resource for parents to see what is happening in the classroom. Assignments, news, projects, field trips, volunteer requests, and any additional info would be posted here. . . . (P)

CUE-I: Good idea for a project, [S5] -- you'll want to look around to see if other teachers have done this and see if you can incorporate the best of their ideas and those of your own. (E & S)

S6: I think you should add a link to your newsletter so that if parents are interested, they can e-mail you directly. . . . (S)

Responding to S5's proposal, the instructor encouraged the student's further development of the project idea by looking up other resources, whereas S6 provided a specific suggestion on the project implementation.

Table 1. Six patterns of online discourse

Category	Educational Purpose	Sequential Structure	Central Features
Inquiry-Based Discourse	Students' explorations of their own meanings of knowledge with their own or teacher-raised provocative questions	Question (Q) --> Suggestion (S) or Reflection (Ref)	Open-ended questions and explorations
Information Sharing	Information seeking or probing with specific questions looking for answers	Question (Q) --> Information (Info)	Specific questions and answers on the basis of the relationship between expert and novice learner
Reading Reflection	Students' deliberate expressions of thoughts regarding course readings or messages in relation with their personal knowledge, experiences, or belief systems	Readings (Info) --> Reflections (Ref)	Relating readings with students' own interests and experiences
Analytical Evaluation	Students' evaluations of messages or other readings with their judgmental decisions in regard to their own or teacher-provided criteria	Readings (Info) --> Evaluation (E)	Evaluation criteria generated by the teacher or students
Argumentative Discourse	Learners' extended understanding of the complexity of the discussion topic, and their enhanced commitment to cooperative learning	Debate (Pro-Con) --> Debate (Pro-Con)	Structured debates on certain issues or controversies
Project-Based Discourse	Students' sharing of project proposals and progress reports, and their continuous reconstructions of projects in terms of others' feedback	Proposal (P) or Report (Rpt) --> Evaluation (E), Suggestion (S), or Reflective feedback (Ref)	Reflective and constructive evaluation of students' project proposals and progress reports

V. Discussion: Instructional Framework for Online Courses

Mehan's IRE sequences of interaction and three components of instruction -- opening, instruction, and closing -- describe the pattern of traditional classroom lessons, and provide a framework for face-to-face classroom instruction design. As discussed above, our analysis of online educational interactions found multiple and complex patterns of interaction, rather than the single IRE sequencing. In the CUE and TER classes we analyzed, new instructional structures functioned in shaping the patterns of students' online social discourses and their learning. In closely examining two classes' instructional structures, we searched for a new instructional framework that would be able to support these multiple patterns of online discourse. According to our analysis of these two classes' instructional structures, the six major patterns of educational discourse were initially designed and guided through a sequential setting of instructor's opening message, main discourse, and transition.

1) Opening

In the opening message that prompted one of the online discourse patterns, the instructors provided a mix of the following four components. First, online instructors offered resources or books that students were to read before participating in an online discussion. Second, instructors sometimes asked specific questions that they expected students to explore for the class discussion in the pattern of inquiry-based discourse or information probing. Third, both CUE and TER instructors gave students an instructional guideline that included the general description of the particular learning activity, objectives, evaluation criteria for students' postings, and activity timeline. The following example of instructional guideline, which was posted for the week two activity in TER, shows its concreteness that allowed online students to grasp what they were expected to do clearly:

From Week 2. Learn & Live Reflections, in TER, summer 2000.

TER-I: Since most everyone is sending the same URL multiple times, just post the URL once in this thread. After reading Chapter 2, 3, 5, 6, & 7 of Learn & Live, Post your reflection by clicking on the REPLY button for this message. After your posting, review one other student's reflection for this week's reading and submit a reply by clicking on the REPLY button for that student's message. This will allow your response to be posted directly under the person's reflection you are responding to. As an example, I've copied Becky's reflection into this thread, then Jennifer's response is indented and appears directly underneath. I would like to see at least one response to each person's reflection.

Finally, online instructors could be also a model of active discussant for students through their own participation. For instance, the CUE instructor posted his own vision of educational technology in 2020 and asked students to respond to his statement in order to initiate the class discussion:

From "2020 Vision", in CUE, fall 2000.

CUE-I: 1. Here I'd like you to react to my vision, posted as the next posting, and to react to at least two other classmates' visions (who haven't already had two replies, just to distribute the reactions). 2. What will education be like 20 years from now? Will it be the same old, same old, but with some new technology around the fringe? Will it be totally different? . . .

2) Main Discourse

The instructor's opening message with the instructional guideline cued the beginning of the main class discussion, and indicated the initial selection of a major pattern or structure for the discussion. During the main class discussion, online instructors' moderation with the provided instructional guideline continuously shaped the major pattern of the online discourse. Each of the six patterns of online discourse that our study found had its own characteristic sequential structure as well as educational implications. Hence, online instructors have to decide which pattern of discourse would be most appropriate for the content of discussion to be covered.

The social context of the class including social relations among students and the teacher, the participants' values, and their teaching or learning styles can also play a significant role in shaping what type of online discourse pattern is most dominant throughout the main class discussions. Such an analysis of social contexts of the CUE and TER classes was not the focus of our study. Examining dominant patterns of discourse of online classes in relation to their social contexts will be another critical theme for future research. In our study, discourse patterns of reading reflection and information sharing were more frequently found than others, such as class debates and analytical evaluations.

3) Transition

In online instruction, no closing message particularly from the instructor was found. Instead, by the activity timeline, students and the instructor recognized when the present online class discussion would be closed. Another setup of a following discussion session, which topic was relevant to the previous discussions, smoothly transited the current class discussion. Students' integration of the class discussion was also an alternative closing for online instruction. For instance, some of the CUE students posted their second reflections that integrated or summarized their online class discussion on the issue of the vision of educational technology in 2020:

S17: I've enjoyed reading all the different postings out there. I especially enjoyed the discussion about the future of books: I think that the electronic book win[s] out. Current models can hold up to ten (or may be more) books. Some e-books have a two-panel design, just like the good old books we know and love. . . .

S18: My vision in 2020 is similar to many of my fellow classmates in CTER. A perfect utopia would have students with palm computers at each desk network together to a teacher computer/mainframe. Class size would be lowered to 15 students per class with a mentor/teacher there to lead instruction. . .

Students' integration of discussion messages was an advanced form of group learning; it was beneficial for students not only to recognize the direction of group discussion, but also to develop their own critical perspectives in understanding of others'. In the process of integration, students could learn how to link and differentiate ideas while organizing and critically thinking about them.

VI. Conclusion

A review of studies on computer-networked communication in education led us to recognize that the multidirectional, thematic, and reflective characteristics of online interaction call for further studies on effective structures of online instruction and teaching strategies for online program designers and moderators. In this paper, we analyzed asynchronous online discussions of two graduate classes, and discovered six major patterns of online educational discourse. Each of these discourse patterns included its own educational implication, features, and particular sequential structure that supported a certain type of content of discussion.

We also extended our study to discuss how instructional structures as well as teacher moderation could prompt or guide the major patterns of online interaction. We provided suggestions for designing and implementing online instruction, in terms of the basic instructional structure consisting of opening, main discourse, and transition, in comparison with Mehan's study (1979) of traditional, classroom instruction. The teacher's opening message cued and initially guided the main class discussion with specific descriptions of the class activity or modeling, whereas the teacher's role of leading a discussion diminished during the main discourse. Student integration of the class discussion was also an alternative form of instructional transition that enhances their experiences of idea-linking and structuring.

This study of online interaction patterns attempted to open a new dialogue on building an instructional framework supporting productive online educational discourses. In extending this research, future studies will need to look at the social contexts of online classes, which our study did not closely examine, in order to explore what entails the dominant uses of certain patterns of discourse and what are the educational implications of such results. We also expect that further empirical studies that evaluate this suggested framework will develop new insights in defining the major patterns of online discourse as well as online instructional framework.

References

Black, S., Levin, J., Mehan, H., & Quinn, C. (1983). Real and non-real time interaction: Unraveling multiple threads of discourse. Discourse Processes, 6, 59-75.

Duffy, T. M., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C. L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 51-78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Haavind, S. (2000). Why don't face-to-face teaching strategies work in the virtual classroom? The Concord Consortium, 4(3), 3-4.

Harasim, L. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In Online Education (pp. 39-64). New York: Praeger.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Quinn, C., Mehan, H., Levin, J., & Black, S. (1983). Real education in non-real time: The use of electronic message systems for instruction. Instructional Science, 11, 313-327.