Some groups had more affective activities than other groups, while some groups’
cognitive activities outnumbered the rested. This section describes the message counts of each type of learning activities of each group in the three online discussions. In terms of topic discussions, the total number of messages ranged from 75 to 200 among the eight groups of this study; yet, the proportion of each type of learning activity varied. As shown in Table 5.1, group 7 had the least productive discussion in which only 75 messages produced (15 cognitive activities, 38 affective activities, and
22 metacognitive activities). However, it is noted that the total message counts do not reflect the quality of the discussion but only present one perspective with which to examine the process. On the other hand, group 3 had 118 affective activities in their topic discussion, but only 26 metacognitive and 56 cognitive activities. Group 3, who had the most total message counts (200), seems to have a particularly large number of social interactions with little focus on the task itself.
Table 5.1
Message counts of each activity code in topic discussions
Code/Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total
CRI (Repeating info without interpretation) 0 49 collaborative writing projects (e.g. a landmark or a building on campus), and after the discussion, they had to decide the specific target of their collaborative writing. In general, each student first proposed their preferences of places and buildings, and some backed up their ideas with reasons. Then, they gradually narrowed the
suggestions to two or three options, and they voted for the options. No obvious conflict was observed. Most groups completed the assigned task during designated time periods and the discussions were mainly focused, even though some off-task and floating messages did appear. Very few cognitive activities referred to information found outside of the discourse (Code: CARI and CALI), which means learners at this stage did not look for materials found in other sources (e.g. website) but simply brought up ideas and contributed knowledge of their own. The lack of external references might be a result of the nature of the task, which was to decide the topic of collaborative writing, and students were making decision based on their personal preference and pre-understanding of those subjects.
In terms of outline discussions, the total number of messages ranged from 161 to 546 among the eight groups. Total counts of each type of learning activities by code are presented in Table 5.2. In the second discussion, students brainstormed the exact contents they were about to write, including which aspects of the target building, and how to obtain the information and materials for the writing. They had to generate a specific outline for their collaborative writing project and post the outline online to share with the other groups. This was the second online discussion and participants seemed more familiar with the tool (chat room). A few students complained that the messages got delayed at the beginning of the discussion, but fortunately the discussions all moved on without technical difficulties.
Table 5.2
Message counts of each activity code in outline discussions
Code/Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total
Cognitive
CDIF (Ideas presented followed by a reason) 42 68 23 27 35 15 14 16 240 CDINF (Ideas presented not followed by a reason) 10 2 22 0 2 0 16 2 54
CDAF (Dis/agreement followed by a reason) 11 6 6 0 1 3 5 2 34
CDANF (Dis/agreement not followed by a reason) 22 11 55 14 18 21 34 4 179
CDAQ (A content-directed question) 3 8 2 5 27 8 11 2 66
CARI (Referring info/contribution in the discourse) 9 18 5 2 7 0 8 10 59
CASI (Summarizing/evaluation info) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
CARE (Referring to earlier/personal experience) 0 11 0 0 3 11 3 0 28
CLI (Linking facts, remarks, and opinions) 0 0 0 0 2 8 1 0 11
CRI (Repeating info without interpretation) 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 5
100 124 113 49 95 67 93 36 677
Affective
AG (Emotional/general reaction) 151 115 45 40 80 65 44 24 564
AA (Asking for feedback or opinions) 19 7 8 2 0 0 0 0 36
AC (Chatting or social talks) 77 152 24 16 27 36 86 50 468
247 274 77 58 107 101 130 74 1068 Metacognitive
MPP (Presenting approach of the task) 58 40 21 15 26 6 30 13 209
MPA (Asking for approach of the task) 52 17 13 17 27 3 26 7 162
MPE (Explaining/summarizing the approach) 22 8 1 10 21 4 5 1 72
MCS (Structuring the contribution, concluding) 11 17 8 0 0 12 12 15 75 MCA (Asking for clarification of a certain idea) 7 18 25 3 8 3 7 3 74
MCE (Explaining or answering questions) 20 12 21 3 35 12 12 10 125
MMM (Monitoring the planning of the task) 18 16 16 5 8 8 12 6 89
MMR (Reflecting on one’s own actions) 11 3 3 1 18 14 7 2 59
199 131 108 54 143 62 111 57 865
Total 546 529 298 161 345 230 334 167 2610
The outline discussion was more challenging than the topic discussion; not only did the total number of messages increase dramatically, but the proportions of each type of learning activity also changed. The least two rigorous group were group 4 and 8; which share a similar pattern for number of messages. Group 4, the most
“silent” group, had a fairly equal proportion of learning activities with each type
representing about one third of the 161 messages (49 cognitive, 58 affective, and 54 metacognitive). Group 8 was almost equally silent, with slightly more affective messages (74 out of 167). Compared to group 4 and 8, group 2 presents a distinct distribution of learning activities, with more than a half affective messages (274 out of 529).
Other than affective messages, a great number of presenting ideas with (CDIF) or without a reason (CDINF) appeared in outline discussions. This type of cognitive activity includes expressing opinions, presenting ideas, and proposing solutions for a problem. Owing to the nature of this task (making decisions on the scope of their wiki collaborative writing), a lot of the discussion was about brainstorming what aspect of the subject to be included in the writing, such as its history or architecture. Thus, this type of cognitive activities (CDIF and CDINF) seemed to dominate the whole discussion. The second prominent type of learning activity is identified as presenting an approach to carry out the task (MPP). Using the same logic, learners discussed what to write about, how to do it (collect materials), and delegated responsibilities at the same. Other than ideas directly related to the English writing itself, messages regarding a method and the person who would carry out the method fall into this type.
As presented in Table 5.3, the total number of messages in the last synchronous online discussion about revision, ranged from 97 to 313, which were less than that for the outline discussion (161-546), but still much more than for the topic discussion (75-200). The most “silent” group (the one with the fewest messages)) was group 6, different from the two previous discussions, which were group 7 and group 4, respectively. Group 6 had a relatively small proportion of affective activities when compared with other groups, especially group 1. Group 1 offered the most rigorous discussion in this task (total message counts is 313), but almost half of those (140) represented affective activities, such as social talks and chats.
Table 5.3
Message counts of each activity code in revision discussions
Code/Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total
Cognitive
CDIF (Ideas presented followed by a reason) 30 18 8 24 5 10 3 21 119
CDINF (Ideas presented not followed by a reason) 9 3 7 7 10 2 1 4 43
CDAF (Dis/agreement followed by a reason) 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 9
CDANF (Dis/agreement not followed by a reason) 8 13 15 27 14 13 5 13 108
CDAQ (A content-directed question) 3 2 5 3 3 3 3 2 24
CARI (Referring info/contribution in the discourse) 0 5 14 11 3 2 0 0 35
CASI (Summarizing/evaluation info) 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
CARE (Referring to earlier/personal experience) 0 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 10
CLI (Linking facts, remarks, and opinions) 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
CRI (Repeating info without interpretation) 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3
52 48 52 77 38 31 14 46 358
Affective
AG (Emotional/general reaction) 68 42 38 31 71 18 54 59 381
AA (Asking for feedback or opinions) 5 0 7 1 7 1 6 5 32
AC (Chatting or social talks) 67 39 27 23 33 9 49 15 262
140 81 72 55 111 28 109 79 675
Metacognitive
MPP (Presenting approach of the task) 26 30 30 18 17 12 26 31 190
MPA (Asking for approach of the task) 15 12 4 7 21 3 14 15 91
MPE (Explaining/summarizing the approach) 24 8 14 8 12 2 17 8 93
MCS (Structuring the contribution, concluding) 1 0 0 6 2 6 2 7 24
MCA (Asking for clarification of a certain idea) 23 6 9 8 10 5 22 14 97
MCE (Explaining or answering questions) 16 10 20 11 12 2 32 10 113
MMM (Monitoring the planning of the task) 13 5 2 4 3 3 3 8 41
MMR (Reflecting on one’s own actions) 3 7 15 9 8 5 2 8 57
121 78 94 71 85 38 118 101 706
Total 313 207 218 203 234 97 241 226 1739
In the third discussion, students examined their first draft of the collaborative writing and proposed points to be revised. They were asked to generate a list of points to be revised, including the content arrangement, sentence structure, information to be added, grammar and phrases to be corrected. In terms of the types of learning activities, some groups obviously had more affective messages, and some groups had
more cognitive or metacognitive messages. Variation existed among the groups;
however, of the total number of each type of learning activity, the message quantity decreased while the quality improved. Obviously, more metacognitive activities appeared in the revision discussion (706 out of 1739 messages). It could be a result of the nature of the task. Compared to the previous two discussions, in which learners had to brainstorm new ideas and propose interesting aspects to write about the topic, the revision task was more specific in which they focused on their own writing, rather than looking for more materials and external information. For the computer log, it was found that learners often reminded each other which parts need revisions, as coded as monitoring the original planning, aim or time schedule (MMM).