FINDINGS OF SMALL-GROUP-DISCUSSION TASK
Note Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number
175
The three groups were randomly observed during different weeks to examine their
face-to-face interaction functions. The total observation time was not equal for all three
groups, and similarities as well as differences were noted between them. For example,
all three groups manifested a number of responses related to asking for and giving
language-related information and suggestions that was higher than their number of
responses related to asking for and giving opinions (see Figure 5.4). However, the
frequency and type of these responses varied across groups. The students in OG1 spent
a great deal of time discussing language-related and topic-related information, whereas
the members of OG2 and OG3 were more focused on providing information and
suggestions.
These similarities and differences notwithstanding, the responses across the groups
indicate that all three groups of students relied on face-to-face interactions to solve
language-related problems. OG2 and OG3 further depended on a face-to-face mode to
solve problems related to task implementation. Notably, OG2 did not display any
responses intended to solve topic-related problems, and OG1 made no responses related
to solving personal problems. The absence of these two items indicates that it is not
inevitable for topic-related problems and personal problems to occur or to elicit a
176
Figure 5.4: Frequency analysis of each interaction functions across groups
Online Participation and Interaction
Online discussion was another significant mode of learning observed during small
group discussions that required a group of students to collaborate in producing a group
argument to a given controversial question. The number of online posts and the number
of contributing members of all three groups were analysed to examine online
participation rates over an eight-week online discussion. An analysis of the data showed
that the three groups of students generated 91% (217 posts) of the total number of posts
while teachers contributed 9% (22 posts). Among the students’ posts, only 35% were
independent messages, suggesting a high response rate of 65%. Among the three groups,
OG1 contributed the highest number of posts while OG2 generated the lowest number.
OG1 produced 40% of the posts; OG2 was responsible for 21% of the total and OG3
contributed 39 % (Figure 5.5). The posting contributions among all three groups
177
students mainly led their own dialogues by expressing thoughts, elaborating opinions
and giving comments.
Figure 5.5: Number of posts generated across groups
Note. Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number
An analysis of the students’ weekly posts reveals that students in OG2 and OG3
generated more posts during the last four weeks of the observation period (Figure 5.6).
Although this phenomenon was not as clearly noticeable when viewing the weekly
contributions of the OG1 students, the number of posts during the last four weeks also
appeared to be consistently higher in that group when compared with those produced
during the first five weeks of the observation period. The number of contributors
remained inconsistent throughout; some weeks showed more contributors than others
during the eight-week discussion period. Notably, all students in OG2 contributed to the
178
participation rate was relatively higher during the last four weeks than over the first five
weeks.
Figure 5.6: Number of weekly posts and contributors across groups
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
The students’ online discussion postings, including independent messages and
interactive messages, were analysed to examine the interaction functions. Independent
messages refer to postings without responses, while interactive messages consist of
online utterances with responses from other discussants. Of 217 posts, 225 codes were
analysed based on a revised and expanded Zhu’s model (1998) (Section 4.5.2). This
analysis of the data identified discussion (55.1%), comment (27.1%) and synthesizing
(10.7%) as the three main interaction functions (Figure 5.7) present. Other interaction
functions such as question (5.8%), information-sharing (0.9%), and answer (0.4%) had
179
Figure 5.7: Percentage of online interaction types identified
Both similarities and differences were found between groups with regard to students’
online interactions with their group members. Data analysis (see Figure 5.8) showed
that the three groups of students primarily expressed thoughts and opinions (discussion
function) and provided comments (comment function) when engaging in the online
discussions. However, the frequency of each type of function used varied relatively
within groups. OG3 members contributed most discussion statements, while OG1
students exceeded OG2 and OG3 members in comment statements. OG2 students
contributed the least number of both types of statements. The number of synthesizing
statements contributed was not high, but displayed similar frequency across groups.
Students rarely raised questions, shared information or provided answers to
information-seeking questions. The overall data suggests that all three groups shared
similar interactions among their members, but differed in the level of interaction among
180
Figure 5.8: Frequency of online interaction across groups
The discussion interaction function is defined as consisting of online statements that
express individual thoughts and elaborate individual opinions related to the topics under
discussion. Online responses that included clarification, explanation and elaboration in
responding to others’ questions and statements were also classified into this interaction function. Within this function, expression of thoughts accounted for 61% of the
statements, whereas elaboration of opinions represented 39%, thus indicating that
students spent more time expressing their thoughts (online response 1) rather than
elaborating opinions (online response 2). An examination of students’ online discussion
logs reveals that most of the discussion statements were independent posts made in
response to discussion questions, not interactive messages posted in response to
prompting questions or others’ opinions; this finding points out that students appear
keen to express their thoughts or elaborate their individual ideas (as illustrated below)
181
Online response 1
“I thought that the aboriginal arts culture is one of Taiwan’s characteristics.” (Discussion-Expression of thoughts – Tian - Week 5: Endangered Taiwanese traditional handicrafts)
Online response 2
“I think aboriginal arts have some hindrance. For example, [the] aboriginal are repeled [repelled] by social environment. They are very the minority. And their education is also question. [They are the minority and they have problems to get education.]” (Discussion-Elaboration of opinions –Jing - Week 5: Endangered Taiwanese traditional handicrafts)
Note: For the purpose of English practice, students’ online responses are required to
present in English. The square brackets are the corrections of students’ English errors.
The comment interaction function comprises online utterances that show agreement or
disagreement, or offer affirmative or negative comments. Expressing agreement and
offering affirmative comments represents support, while expressing disagreement or
negative comments indicates conflict. Non-substantive comments accounted for 48% of
the statements corresponding with this function while substantive comments represented
52% of the statements. Substantive comments refer to those comments provided that
include further personal opinions (online response 3), whereas non-substantive
comments present personal positions without further opinions (online response 4).
The percentages reflected the students’ preference for providing comments with
182
response to discussion questions; they commented in part on other members’ opinions
and most often agreed with others, instead of disagreeing and challenging their views
(online response 5).
Online response 3
“I disagree to allow the collection agents to be legally formed to collect debts. This way may effect [affect] social order. It would make another problem of committing a crime.” (Substantive comment – Cai, OG1, Week 14: Agree or disagree to allow the collection agents to be legally formed?)
Online response 4
“I disagree.” (Non-substantive comment – Hua, OG3, Week 14: Agree or disagree to allow the collection agents to be legally formed?)
Online response 5
“I also agree [with] your opinion. Taiwan have [has] more experience than China and the government has worked to create a macro environment favourable to high-tech development.” (Substantive comment – Zhou, OG3, Week 6: To invest Taiwan’s hi-tech industry or not)
The synthesizing interaction function pertains to online statements that compile related
information or summarize discussion messages; this function appeared only in the last
group discussion posting in which all members’ opinions were compiled to form a group argument. A final argument that consisted only of one member’s post without
183
statements were rarely found in individual student posts. Although the number of
synthesizing statements was relatively low compared to the number of discussion and
comment statements, their inclusion represents a significant interaction function that is
essential in achieving the task goal.
The question interaction function is represented by online inquiries that seek
information or attempt to start a dialogue; this function was performed mostly to elicit
more opinions for elaboration requests, clarification requests, or explanation requests.
Students seldom raised questions to seek information or to start a dialogue that enquired
about their group members’ opinions; only one such post appeared in the discussions of
OG2, and one in the discussions of OG3. OG1 members generated the most question
statements. One particular student in OG1, Niya, was the most prolific contributor of
this type of interaction, producing a total of 12 posts primarily to ask for elaborations
(online response 6), as illustrated in the example below:
Online response 6
“I support to live in [the] Mars because it have [has] a lot of water. What do you guys think?” (Question-Elaboration request – Niya, OG1, Week 4 Space colonies) “So what is our discussion major?” (Question-Information seeking – Niya, OG1, Week 5 Endangered Taiwanese traditional handicrafts)
“Could you tell me ‘destroy the ecology of a landscape and the local way of life’ in detail?” (Question-Explanation request – Niya, OG1, Week 16: Tourism today)