Dialogue attributes that inform depth and quality of participation in course discussion forums

Elaine Farrow, Johanna D. Moore, D. Gašević
{"title":"Dialogue attributes that inform depth and quality of participation in course discussion forums","authors":"Elaine Farrow, Johanna D. Moore, D. Gašević","doi":"10.1145/3375462.3375481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper describes work in progress to answer the question of how we can identify and model the depth and quality of student participation in class discussion forums using the content of the discussion forum messages. We look at two widely-studied frameworks for assessing critical discourse and cognitive engagement: the ICAP and Community of Inquiry (CoI) frameworks. Our goal is to discover where they agree and where they offer complementary perspectives on learning. In this study, we train predictive classifiers for both frameworks on the same data set in order to discover which attributes are most predictive and how those correlate with the framework labels. We find that greater depth and quality of participation is associated with longer and more complex messages in both frameworks, and that the threaded reply structure matters more than temporal order. We find some important differences as well, particularly in the treatment of messages of affirmation.","PeriodicalId":355800,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge","volume":"99 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375462.3375481","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

This paper describes work in progress to answer the question of how we can identify and model the depth and quality of student participation in class discussion forums using the content of the discussion forum messages. We look at two widely-studied frameworks for assessing critical discourse and cognitive engagement: the ICAP and Community of Inquiry (CoI) frameworks. Our goal is to discover where they agree and where they offer complementary perspectives on learning. In this study, we train predictive classifiers for both frameworks on the same data set in order to discover which attributes are most predictive and how those correlate with the framework labels. We find that greater depth and quality of participation is associated with longer and more complex messages in both frameworks, and that the threaded reply structure matters more than temporal order. We find some important differences as well, particularly in the treatment of messages of affirmation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对话属性告知参与课程讨论论坛的深度和质量
本文描述了正在进行的工作,以回答我们如何识别和建模学生参与课堂讨论论坛的深度和质量,使用讨论论坛信息的内容。我们着眼于评估批判性话语和认知参与的两个被广泛研究的框架:ICAP和探究社区(CoI)框架。我们的目标是发现他们在哪些方面是一致的,以及他们在哪些方面提供了互补的学习观点。在这项研究中,我们在相同的数据集上为两个框架训练预测分类器,以发现哪些属性是最具预测性的,以及这些属性如何与框架标签相关联。我们发现,在这两个框架中,参与的深度和质量都与更长的、更复杂的消息有关,并且线程回复结构比时间顺序更重要。我们也发现了一些重要的差异,特别是在对肯定信息的处理上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
How working memory capacity limits success in self-directed learning: a cognitive model of search and concept formation Quantifying data sensitivity: precise demonstration of care when building student prediction models Towards automated analysis of cognitive presence in MOOC discussions: a manual classification study Towards automatic cross-language classification of cognitive presence in online discussions What college students say, and what they do: aligning self-regulated learning theory with behavioral logs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1