Figure 1: E-learning component of the course using Quickplace
| Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2008, 24(1), 91-107. |
AJET 24 |
Postgraduate students' knowledge construction during asynchronous computer conferences in a blended learning environment: A Malaysian experience
Hong Kian-Sam and Julia Ai Cheng Lee
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
Blended learning, using e-learning tools to supplement existing on campus learning, often incorporates asynchronous computer conferencing as a means of augmenting knowledge construction among students. This case study reports findings about levels of knowledge construction amongst adult postgraduate students in six asynchronous computer conferences in a blended learning environment. The aim is to document and understand the kinds of task related postings in asynchronous computer conferencing that foster knowledge construction. The tool for analysis is an adaptation of the model by Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001). Data were collected from Quickplace, the e-learning system at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, with 22 adult postgraduate students enrolled in the Masters of Science in Human Resource Development who were attending a 14-week course on Cognition and Learning. The results showed that the students were active in constructing knowledge but limited to seeking and giving opinions among peers and knowledge telling. The prevalence of low level knowledge construction points to the need for the e-learning facilitator to encourage the students to go beyond regurgitating facts of what they have learned. More guidance should be given to the students to refrain from mere knowledge telling. Results suggest that there are blended learning benefits for these students as they are given improved opportunities to learn outside the classroom.
Many educational institutions have invested in e-learning. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has published its e-learning strategy, which sets out strategies and implementation plans for supporting e-learning in higher education institutions. HEFCE was reported to be allocating 33 million UK pounds in capital funding for e-learning (HEFCE, 2005).
In e-learning environments, one of the most common types of communication is asynchronous conferencing. In asynchronous conferencing, learners usually interact with each other at different times via text messages allowing them more time to reflect, think and search for additional information when compared with synchronous conferencing (Frank, Kurtz, & Levin, 2002; Hong, 2002; Jonassen, 2001; Woo & Reeves, 2007, Wu & Hiltz, 2004; Young & Norgard, 2006). Within the scope of adult and postgraduate learning, e-learning and asynchronous conferencing have gained popularity and acceptance because the time to travel physically to and from institutions of learning is now compensated by online accessibility and hence offers much convenience that extends beyond the walls of the physical classroom (King, 2002).
Furthermore, Shellens and Valcke (2005, 2006) in their study on the existence of knowledge construction in asynchronous conferencing found that collaborative online discussion groups were very task oriented and that high phases of knowledge construction were exhibited. Other studies such as Pena-Shaff and Nicholls (2004) have shown that students in asynchronous conferencing were engaged in knowledge construction processes and produced more reflective monologues. However, in a study among postgraduate students in an e-learning statistics course at a tertiary institution in Malaysia, Hong (2002) reported that although there was some evidence of critical thinking during the asynchronous conferencing, the discussions were generally at low levels of knowledge construction.
In the case of Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, the use of e-learning is meant to act as a complementary learning support system, while not reducing the duration of face to face sessions. It is the University's policy to offer blended learning rather than distance learning education at the undergraduate and graduate levels of learning (Hong et al., 2005; Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 2002). In Unimas, the face to face sessions run as normal and students meet their course facilitator for three hours per week for a three-credit course. The e-learning facility is meant to allow the students to participate in asynchronous conferences, to ask questions, and to construct meanings of the domain knowledge acquired inside and outside class.
Student reflection is often prompted by questions that serve one of two functions - they are either centering (questions that promote convergent thought) or expanding (questions that promote divergent thought) (Hunkins, 1972). Blanchette (2001) found that asynchronous computer conferencing allows for higher levels of cognitive questions that encourage critical thinking. Learners have more time process questions and develop responses, and the learner's cognitive level of response often matches the cognitive level of the questions asked. Muilenburg and Berge (2000) agreed, reporting that the level of student thinking is directly proportional to the level of questions asked.
The benefits of asynchronous computer conferencing have led several researchers to further explore student interaction and develop models and tools for asynchronous computer conferencing analysis. There are several types of analysis, including frequency of postings and content analysis. Content analysis studies have generally been qualitative and explore issues such as problem solving or critical thinking (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; Meyer, 2004; Rourke & Anderson, 2004; Veerman & Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2001). Quantitative studies focus on measures such as frequency of postings, which may include the number of threads per conference, the number of postings per thread, or the number of instructor postings per thread (Mazzolini & Maddison, 2003; Monroe, 2003).
In view of the increasing use of asynchronous conferencing in blended learning, there is a need for analysis tools that review the process of knowledge development within these online discussions. Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001) worked on a categorising model of knowledge construction based on social constructivist principles (Schellens & Valcke, 2006), and having two major categories: task related and non-task related discussions. There were four categories of non-task discussions. The four categories with examples of the posting are: (a) Planning: "Is it OK to discuss the arguments first"?; (b) Technical: "Do you know how to change the diagram window?"; (c) Social: "Smart thinking"; and (d) Nonsense: "What about a swim this afternoon?" (Veerman & Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2001). The task related discussions, on the other hand, consisted of three major categories. The three categories with examples of the posting are: (a) New idea: "Interaction means responding to each other"; (b) Explanation: "I mean that you integrate information of someone else in your reply"; and (c) Evaluation: "I don't think that's a suitable description because interaction means also interaction with computers or materials, see Laurillard's definition" (Veerman & Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2001).
Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001) further elaborated that a New idea can be described as a task related posting, focused on relevant content that is not mentioned before. An Explanation is a posting in which information is refined or elaborated that was clearly stated before, but elsewhere in the discussion. An Evaluation message is more than a "Yes, what a good idea" message and often involves reasoning processes or justifications.
Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001) used their model successfully for analysing knowledge construction in four studies with different groups of undergraduate students at Utrecht University and Wageningen University in the Netherlands, using computer mediated communications (CMC) systems. They found that asynchronous CMC can provide students with more options to think and reflect on information, to organise and keep track of discussions, and to engage in large group discussions. Schellens and Valcke (2005) have also used Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse's model to investigate whether asynchronous discussion groups can enhance knowledge construction. Their study showed that the interaction of discussions amongst learners was very task oriented and reflected higher phases of knowledge construction.
Figure 1: E-learning component of the course using Quickplace
- Dear students, we have watched a video on Brain Learning on December 17, 2004 but we didn't have enough time to discuss in class. I suggest that we continue our learning process in the virtual space. Please write out three main points on how this particular video relates to your profession e.g.: teacher, employee of the inland revenue, Bernas, Pustaka Negeri Sarawak, Everise etc. Try to focus your answers on the following questions:
Post your responses. Comment and discuss on your friends' responses and queries. - Julia
- What is your impression of the video? (e.g.: if you like what you saw, tell us why. If you felt that the video was not interesting, give us your reason.)
- What are the three important features you noticed from the video? Why do you notice them?
- How does this video relate to your profession? How would you apply what you have learned at your place of work?
- You will find in the attachment, three articles and one PowerPoint notes. Print out the three articles. Ask three most salient questions about the articles and discuss each others' questions. I have allocated marks for the online discussion - Julia
Figure 2: Example of a computer conference session
The discussions in the asynchronous computer conferences were in a threaded format making it easier for the students to follow the ongoing discussions. Students could click on any discussion thread and simply follow any discussion posted by their peers or the topics posted by the course facilitator as shown in Figure 2.
| Example of a computer conference posting | Unit of analysis | Code scheme |
| We cannot deny that in this modern world of technology, a lot of electronic devices have been creatively designed to make life easier such as hand phones... even more perfect than a human brain because it never fails to remember. My observation is human beings like you and me has been too dependent on electronic devices for remembering names,... lots of memory | 1 | Give opinion |
| ... the human brain is never overloaded. | 2 | Incorrect knowledge telling |
| Just imagine if one day such devices just suddenly disappear from the earth, what are we going to do? | 3 | Ask for opinion |
| For something we don't like, we are also interested to remember what we don't like! | 4 | Give opinion |
The analysis tool for the content analysis of the computer conferences postings was adapted from the model by Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001). This tool was applicable to this study because of Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse's focus on the examination of collaborative learning as a process of knowledge construction, which is the main focus of this paper. The original categories for analyses are available in Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001). The modified categories for analyses with examples are shown in Table 2. The major categories were non-task related discussion, task related discussion, and facilitator discussion. The facilitator category is an addendum to the Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse's (2001) model, which was not included in the original coding scheme. Modifications were also made to expand the task related category, from three sub-categories (new idea, explanation and evaluation), to seven sub-categories (ask for opinion/ encourage participation, give opinion, with examples, knowledge telling, inaccurate knowledge telling, new idea, evaluation). Based on the definitions for the various sub-categories in the task related category, and with reference to the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (Smythe & Halonen, undated), the sub-categories of with examples, new idea and evaluation depict higher levels of knowledge construction similar to the analyse, evaluate and create in the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy. On the other hand, the other sub-categories in the task related category are considered to be low level knowledge construction.
| Message | Definition | Example | Knowledge construction | |
| Non-task related | Planning | Statement related to the procedure of team work/ how the discussion should be conducted. | Shall we talk about the most important issues first? | No |
| Technical | Statements related to the technical use of the e-learning software. | You can download any of the files below by dragging them to your Windows desktop. To open a file for reading, double click it. | No | |
| Social | Statements that serve to foster friendship/ camaraderie. | Glad to hear from you all. | No | |
| Nonsense | Statements that are entirely irrelevant to the discussion proper. | I see birds flying in the book. | No | |
| Task related | Ask for opinion or encourage participation | Asking a question but not connecting it to other threads or encouraging other members to participate. | Any suggestion to improve my marketing presentation? | Yes |
| Knowledge telling | Statements based on regurgitated facts from the class or from readings without any connection to personal knowledge. | It was stated in the article that if you have an interest in remembering well, you will be able to remember. | Yes | |
| Inaccurate knowledge telling | Statements that are inaccurate and contain wrong facts. | ... the human brain is never overloaded. | Yes | |
| Give opinion | Statements depicting parti-cipants' personal views, an interpretation or inference from the discussion. | People are different. | Yes | |
| With examples | Statements accompanied by supporting examples, concrete ideas, or application of knowledge. | Through visualised... organise the lessons in a limited principles and connecting content under common labels. | Yes | |
| New idea | Statements that present new thoughts about the discussion. This includes divergent ideas about the topics learned. | Sebelum tidur malam saya bercakap dalam hati bahawa saya akan bangun pada jam 4.00 pagi keesokan harinya. (Before I sleep, I tell myself in my heart that I will wake up at 4 a.m. the next day) | Yes | |
| Evaluation | Statements depicting appraisals, critiques, justifications made by the participants. Something that is more than a "yes, what a good idea." It requires reasoning and justification of thought. | I think we also can apply this to marketing present-ation. I think it would make the job of marketing much more easily and effective by knowing and understanding how people accept and process ideas. | Yes | |
| Facil- itator | Questions | Questions raised by the facilitator regarding the content learned | Ask yourself questions: 1. is this a major task that you have to do in the organisation? | Yes |
| Monitoring | Statements depicting the online moderator checking the ongoing group discussion; includes awareness of understanding. | Dear students, you are encouraged to... | Yes | |
| Explain concept | Statements that include the explanation, reason, or justification regarding the concepts learned. | A feeling of ownership and a sense of belonging to an organisation is constantly an issue faced by organisations... | Yes | |
Inter-rater reliability is a critical concern when conducting a content analysis (Wever, Schellens & Keer, 2006). In this study, two raters coded the data source. One was the second author and the other was a research assistant who was a Masters' degree student at that time. The research assistant was briefed on the coding scheme and trained on how coding was to be carried out. After the training sessions, each rater coded the computer conferences transcripts independently. Transcripts for one of the asynchronous computer conference were used as pilot data. For most cases, an agreement about the final code could be reached. The two raters coded all the transcripts of the six discussion topics. Two formulas were used to ensure the reliability of the data coded. Based on the percent agreement formula (Miles & Huberman, 1994), the resulting percent of agreement was 75.8% for the various categories mentioned in Table 2. The Cohen kappa coefficient (Cohen, 1960) was computed to be 0.71, which was deemed satisfactory (Huck, 2000).
| Asynchronous CC postings | Frequency of unit of analysis | Knowledge construction | |||||||
| CC1 | CC2 | CC3 | CC4 | CC5 | CC6 | Total | |||
| Non-task related | Planning | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | No |
| Technical | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | No | |
| Social | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 7 | No | |
| Nonsense | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | No | |
| Totals | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 7 (1.5%) | ||
| Task related | Give opinion | 22 | 30 | 0 | 6 | 24 | 4 | 86 | Yes |
| With examples | 29 | 2 | 0 | 19 | 18 | 40 | 108 | Yes | |
| Knowledge telling | 17 | 10 | 3 | 36 | 16 | 5 | 87 | Yes | |
| Inaccurate knowledge telling | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | Yes | |
| New ideas | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 8 | Yes | |
| Evaluation | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | Yes | |
| Ask for opinion or encourage participation | 39 | 40 | 1 | 3 | 17 | 1 | 101 | Yes | |
| Totals | 113 | 82 | 4 | 70 | 76 | 51 | 396 (87.0%) | ||
| Facil- itator |
Questions | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 17 | Yes |
| Monitoring | 3 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 20 | Yes | |
| Explain concept | 7 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 15 | Yes | |
| Totals | 14 | 15 | 1 | 6 | 14 | 2 | 52 (11.5%) | ||
| Totals all postings | 127 | 97 | 5 | 80 | 92 | 54 | 455 | ||
| Note: CC = Computer conference. CC1 refers to the first asynchronous CC and so forth | |||||||||
The three sub-categories of with examples, new ideas, and evaluation within the task related category, which was classified as high level knowledge construction, accounted for 120 units of analyses or 26% of the total units of analyses (refer Table 3). The lower levels of knowledge construction as depicted in the following sub-categories: give opinion, ask for opinion and knowledge telling had 274 units of analyses or 60.2% of the total units of analyses (refer Table 3). Thus, for this study, the course participants' conference postings were substantially in the lower levels of knowledge construction.
Thus, although the course participants found that the e-learning component of the course was helpful for learning outside class, as they could access the course site after class hours, the quality of their discussion and the level of knowledge construction remain superficial. Generally, this situation was reflective of the present condition of the Malaysian education system. Although the Malaysian school educational philosophy subscribed to the constructivist teaching philosophy, in tandem with development in the Western world, in reality it is still common to have teacher-centered classroom environments. Thus, these participants had come from a system that is didactic in its approach and it would seem that they were still not used to critical and creative discussion. These results were consistent with the findings reported by Hong (2002), for a group of postgraduate students enrolled in an e-learning statistics course in a Malaysian tertiary institution. Hong (2002) likewise reported that although there were examples of critical thinking, in most instances, the asynchronous discussions focused on low level thinking.
On the other hand, in the Western context, Pena-Shaff and Nicholls (2004), Shellens and Valcke (2005; 2006) and Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001) found that collaborative asynchronous discussions in their studies were task oriented and there were high phases of knowledge constructions.
A study conducted by Rovai (2000) showed that an e-learning facilitator need not reply to all of the postings made by students. What is important is the feeling by contributors that their work is read by others. Rovai added that the facilitator should have a good sense of timing about when immediate feedback should be provided. This calls for further research on when the facilitator should reply to students and how a reply should be made, to improve the quality discussions in asynchronous computer conferencing.
Many of the students attempted to answer the questions rather than to debate or question the postings made by their peers or the facilitator. This bring into focus the need to expose students to good questioning practices, especially those that can develop students' thinking and reasoning skills (Barrows, 1992).
Furthermore, Ewing and Miller (2002) suggest that learners must shoulder individual responsibility and accountability during asynchronous computer conferencing. This view is congruent with the argument made by Slavin (as cited in Rovai, 2000), a proponent of collaborative learning, that group goals and individual accountability should also be implemented as a climate setting process prior to the asynchronous computer conferencing activities.
Discourse analyses showed that the learning environment was learner centered, but the quality of knowledge construction can be improved. Low level knowledge construction postings were a substantial proportion, pointing to the need for the facilitator to encourage the students to go beyond regurgitating of facts. Several ways are suggested to encourage higher order thinking discussions. More guidance should be given to the students to refrain from merely knowledge telling. The e-learning facilitator could model the dynamics of sharing information and transforming knowledge learned. Learner centered structures and explicit training or climate setting sessions should also be implemented to help the participants to critically analyse and synthesise the knowledge they have learned.
From the discussions above, although research in the Western context has shown that there are possibilities for quality knowledge construction in asynchronous computer conferencing, it is not easily attainable, especially in Eastern cultures. There is a need for future research on how various other variables influence high quality knowledge construction. These include course design, the critical thinking skills that students possess, and when and how feedback can influence the quality of knowledge construction of learners in asynchronous computer conferencing for a blended learning environment.
Barrows, H.S. (1992). The tutorial process. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.
Blanchette, J. (2001). Questions in the online learning environment. Journal of Distance Education, 16(2). http://cade.icaap.org/vol16.2/blanchette.html
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46.
Egan, C., Jefferies, A. & Johal, J. (2006). Providing fine-grained feedback within an on-line learning system - Identifying the workers from the lurkers and the shirkers. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 4(1), 15-24. http://www.ejel.org/volume-4/v4-i1/egan-colin-et-al.pdf
Elbow, P. (1994). Writing for learning - not just for demonstrating learning. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Ewing, J. & Miller, D. (2002). A framework for evaluating computer supported collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 112-118. http://www.ifets.info/journals/5_1/ewing.html
Frank, M., Kurtz, G. & Levin, N. (2002). Implications of presenting pre-university courses using the blended e-learning approach. Educational Technology & Society, 5(4), 137-147. http://www.ifets.info/journals/5_4/frank.html
Frey, B.A., Millie, S.S. & Alman, S.W. (2006). Mapping MLIS asynchronous discussions. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 3(1). http://itdl.org/Journal/jan_06/article01.htm
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.
Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Taylor & Francis.
Ginns, P. & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between online and face-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 53-64.
HEFCE (2005). E-learning strategy and capital investment funding. [viewed 10 Sep 2005, verified 14 Jan 2008] http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/2005/cl05_05/
Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers & Education, 41(3), 397-420.
Hong, K.S., Lee, A.C. & Liau, T.L. (2005). Effects of system's and user's characteristics on e-learning use: A study at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 28(2), 1-25.
Hong, K.S. (2002). Evaluation of a Web-based tertiary statistics course using a problem-based learning approach. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Otago, New Zealand.
Huck, S.W. (2000). Research statistics and research. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Hunkins, F.P. (1972). Questioning strategies and techniques. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Jonassen, D.H. (2001). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
King, K.P. (2002). Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 231-246.
Mazzolini, M. & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40(3), 237-253.
Meyer, K.A. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: Four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2). http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v8n2/v8n2_meyer.asp
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Monroe, B. (2003). Fostering critical engagement in online discussion: The Washington State University Study. Pullman, WA: Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education, Washington State University. [verified 14 Jan 2008]
http://ittar.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/Fostering_Critical_Engagement
_in_Online_Discussions_by_Barbara_Monroe.pdf
Muilenburg, L. & Berge, Z. (2000). A framework for designing questions for online learning. eModerators [viewed 22 Sep 2003, verified 14 Jan 2008] http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/muilenburg.html
Oliver, M. & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can 'blended learning' be redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1). [viewed 15 Dec 2006, verified 14 Jan 2008]
http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/viewpdf.asp?
j=elea&vol=2&issue=1&year=2005&article=
3_Oliver_ELEA_2_1_web&id=124.182.50.158
Palloff, R.M. & Pratt, K. (2002). What we know about electronic learning. In L. Foster, B.L. Bower & L.W. Watson (Eds.), ASHE reader distance education: Teaching and learning in higher education. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Pena-Shaff, J.B. & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42(3), 243-265
Reasons, S.G., Valadares, K. & Slavkin, M. (2005). Questioning the hybrid model: Student outcomes in the different course formats. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(1). http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v9n1/v9n1_reasons.asp
Rourke, L. & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5-18.
Rovai, A.P. (2000). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(4), 285-297.
Rovai, A.P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 79-93.
Schellens, T. & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957-975.
Schellens, T. & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46(1), 349-370.
Smythe, K. & Halonen, J. (undated). Using the new Bloom's taxonomy to design meaningful learning assessments. The Assessment CyberGuide for Learning Goals and Outcomes in the Undergraduate Psychology Major. American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/ed/new_blooms.html
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (2002). eLearning @ UNIMAS: The White Paper. Unpublished manuscript. Kota Samarahan, Sarawak: CALM, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.
Veerman, A. & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. Proceedings of the First European Conferenceon CSCL. Maastricht: McLuhan Institute, University of Maastricht. [verified 14 Jan 2008] http://www.ll.unimaas.nl/euro-cscl/Papers/166.doc
Walker, G. (2005). Critical thinking in asynchronous discussions. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6(2). [viewed 12 Dec 2006, verified 14 Jan 2008] http://itdl.org/Journal/Jun_05/article02.htm
Wever, D. B., Schellens, M.V. & Keer, H.V. (2006). Content analysis scheme to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6-28.
Woo, Y. & Reeves, T.C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 15-25.
Wu, D. & Hiltz, S.R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 131-152. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v8n2/v8n2_wu.asp
Young, A. & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the students' perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), 107-115.
| Authors: Associate Professor Hong Kian Sam and Ms Julia Ai Cheng Lee Faculty of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia Email: hksam@fcs.unimas.my, aclee@calm.unimas.my Please cite as: Hong, K. S. & Lee, J. A. C. (2008). Postgraduate students' knowledge construction during asynchronous computer conferences in a blended learning environment: A Malaysian experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 91-107. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/hong.html |