Content Analysis: Online Interaction Analysis Model

A revised and expanded Zhu’s model (1998) was adopted as an analysis parameter to

analyse students’ online interaction. Based on a combination of Vygotsky’s learning

theory and theories of cognitive and constructive learning, Zhu’s model built on the

concept of ZDP and on Dewey’s (1933) notion of reflective thinking and relied on the

underlying theoretical framework to establish its validity (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes,

Koole, & Kappelman, 2006). The model was created with the intention of providing a

way to investigate social interactions as a means of understanding the social aspect of

learning and intellectual development. For this reason, the modified Zhu’s model fit the

theoretical framework of this study, which was also applied with the purpose of

achieving an understanding of how social interaction occurs during the active process of

engaging in reflective discussion tasks that lead to collaborative construction of

meaning.

Description of Categories

Zhu (1998) provided a coding scheme (Appendix 14) which identified two types of

social interaction: vertical and horizontal. Vertical interactions are those in which

answers rather than contribute to and construct knowledge”, while horizontal interactions occur when “members’ desires to express their ideas tend to be strong,

because no authoritative correct answers are expected to come immediately” (p. 824).

Zhu’s coding scheme encompasses eight categories of online interaction in which

information-seeking questions (Type I questions) are considered a form of vertical

interaction, while horizontal interaction includes the following seven categories:

discussing questions (Type II questions), answers, information sharing, discussion,

comment, reflection and scaffolding.

After three initial coding events, the researcher concluded that it was necessary to revise

and expand Zhu’s coding scheme in order to produce a better presentation of online

interaction functions in small groups. This revision had to provide a better identification

of the functions of interaction rather than the types of interaction. To this end, two new

categories -- “Social talk” and “Synthesizing” -- were added to those identified as

horizontal interactions. Each category was defined in great detail or classified into

subunits by providing examples in the coding manual (see Appendix 15). The changes

and additions to the coding schemes are the researcher’s original work and contribution

to the field in terms of research methodology. This process helped the researcher to

accurately code the functions of interaction and to understand students’ actual online

responses in discussions. Further clarifications of the revised categories were delineated

1. Type I questions and Type II questions were both included in the category of

Question. Elaboration requests, explanation requests, clarification requests, and

information requests were also considered to be part of this category. These

interaction functions were found in those online discussions that led to an inquiry

requiring with/without direct or correct answers.

2. The definition of a discussion in the original scheme was too broad. In this research,

discussion was defined as “expressing thoughts” and “elaborating opinions or

responses” so as to reflect different levels of the actual online interaction functions.

3. A comment was explicitly defined as a remark that expressed agreement or

disagreement, or one that provided affirmative or negative feedback. Comments

were described as either “non-substantive” or “substantive”. Non-substantive

comments are those that merely state the speaker’s position without including

justification for that position, such as the statement “I agree”, whereas substantive comments offer some justification or explanation of the speaker’s position.

4. The scaffolding function of interaction was divided as either providing guidance for

others or error correction. Guidance was defined as general advice that more capable

discussants offered to less capable ones. Language error corrections often appeared

in discussions that were focused on language learning. These corrective comments

were therefore included in the scaffolding category.

and expressing apologies, after some short and informal expressions of this type

were found in students’ online discussion.

6. Synthesizing was also added as another new category to cover the instances when

students joined together to synthesize the opinions of group members or to compile

related information. This type of interaction appeared in those discussions that

related to the production of a group argument.

Unit of Analysis

Instead of dividing messages into units of meaning or ideas (Henri, 1992), Zhu (1998)

used entire messages as the unit of analysis in order to capture the essence of meaning

expressed in the message. This method has been considered to be the most objective

identification of units of analysis (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001)

because it is not too complex or too detail-oriented (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, Koole,

& Kappelman, 2006). The researcher conducted three initial coding events to ascertain

that the use of the entire message as the unit of analysis would fit this research. Owing

to their limited English proficiency, EFL undergraduates were not fully capable of

expressing various meanings or ideas in one online posting. Coding their online

discussions by using an entire message made it possible to capture the main idea

expressed in each online posting. Those instances where two diverse ideas appeared in

one online posting were coded as two messages in one online posting, which presents a

Coding Processes

Zhu (1998) did not report any information with regard to inter-rater reliability; to

address the issue, this research relied on three initial coding events to evaluate the

reliability of the revised coding scheme based on Zhu’s model (Figure 4.11). After the

coding scheme was finalised, a coder with previous research experience in Engineering

was selected and provided with a brief introduction to this research, along with concepts

of coding framework and coding techniques, as training for subsequent coding of

students’ online discussion logs with the researcher. After the coder was trained, the researcher randomly selected two discussion logs for an initial coding. A discussion

arose as a result of some apparent disagreements. After this deliberation, another two

discussion logs were randomly selected for the second and third coding, respectively.

After the third coding, an agreement level of 86% was achieved. The researcher then

coded the rest of the online discussion logs from Groups 4, 5 and 7 according to the

agreements reached in the third coding.