Towards more precise design guidance: Specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions

Alyssa Wise, Marzieh Saghafian, Poornima Padmanabhan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

While assigning student roles is a popular technique in online discussions, roles and the responsibilities allocated to them have not been consistently assigned. This makes it difficult to compare implementations and generate principled guidance for role design. This study critically examined frequently assigned student roles and identified a set of seven common functions they ask learners to perform (motivate others to contribute, give direction to the conversation, provide new ideas, use theory to ground the discussion, bring in (relevant external) sources, respond to previous comments, and summarize existing contributions). The latter six functions were used to generate a targeted set of role descriptions (Traffic Director, Starter, Inventor, Importer, Mini-me, Elaborator, Questioner, Devil's Advocate, Synthesizer, Wrapper) and refine a content analysis scheme to assess function fulfillment in online discussions. The roles were tested in a semester-long mixed-level blended educational technology course of 21 students; student feedback was solicited via survey. Roles designed to elicit the functions give direction, use theory, bring in source, respond, and summarize showed a greater degree of function fulfillment than roles which were not. Students found the Starter role very valuable for giving direction to the discussion, and saw moderate value in the Synthesizer and Wrapper role's summaries. The Devil's Advocate role did not fulfill its respond function but was valued by students, suggesting a new possible critique function. All roles were found to use theory, possibly due to task structure. Implications for future research and practice in the design of online discussions are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)55-82
Number of pages28
JournalEducational Technology Research and Development
Volume60
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2012

Fingerprint

student
educational technology
semester
director
content analysis
conversation
traffic
responsibility
Values

Keywords

  • Asynchronous communication
  • College instruction
  • Computer mediated communication
  • Content analysis
  • Cooperative learning
  • Discussion groups
  • Role taking

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

Towards more precise design guidance : Specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions. / Wise, Alyssa; Saghafian, Marzieh; Padmanabhan, Poornima.

In: Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 60, No. 1, 02.2012, p. 55-82.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0e7b6f8500b4493daf67a36903bb0fbe,
title = "Towards more precise design guidance: Specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions",
abstract = "While assigning student roles is a popular technique in online discussions, roles and the responsibilities allocated to them have not been consistently assigned. This makes it difficult to compare implementations and generate principled guidance for role design. This study critically examined frequently assigned student roles and identified a set of seven common functions they ask learners to perform (motivate others to contribute, give direction to the conversation, provide new ideas, use theory to ground the discussion, bring in (relevant external) sources, respond to previous comments, and summarize existing contributions). The latter six functions were used to generate a targeted set of role descriptions (Traffic Director, Starter, Inventor, Importer, Mini-me, Elaborator, Questioner, Devil's Advocate, Synthesizer, Wrapper) and refine a content analysis scheme to assess function fulfillment in online discussions. The roles were tested in a semester-long mixed-level blended educational technology course of 21 students; student feedback was solicited via survey. Roles designed to elicit the functions give direction, use theory, bring in source, respond, and summarize showed a greater degree of function fulfillment than roles which were not. Students found the Starter role very valuable for giving direction to the discussion, and saw moderate value in the Synthesizer and Wrapper role's summaries. The Devil's Advocate role did not fulfill its respond function but was valued by students, suggesting a new possible critique function. All roles were found to use theory, possibly due to task structure. Implications for future research and practice in the design of online discussions are discussed.",
keywords = "Asynchronous communication, College instruction, Computer mediated communication, Content analysis, Cooperative learning, Discussion groups, Role taking",
author = "Alyssa Wise and Marzieh Saghafian and Poornima Padmanabhan",
year = "2012",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1007/s11423-011-9212-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "60",
pages = "55--82",
journal = "Educational Technology Research and Development",
issn = "1042-1629",
publisher = "Springer Boston",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Towards more precise design guidance

T2 - Specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions

AU - Wise, Alyssa

AU - Saghafian, Marzieh

AU - Padmanabhan, Poornima

PY - 2012/2

Y1 - 2012/2

N2 - While assigning student roles is a popular technique in online discussions, roles and the responsibilities allocated to them have not been consistently assigned. This makes it difficult to compare implementations and generate principled guidance for role design. This study critically examined frequently assigned student roles and identified a set of seven common functions they ask learners to perform (motivate others to contribute, give direction to the conversation, provide new ideas, use theory to ground the discussion, bring in (relevant external) sources, respond to previous comments, and summarize existing contributions). The latter six functions were used to generate a targeted set of role descriptions (Traffic Director, Starter, Inventor, Importer, Mini-me, Elaborator, Questioner, Devil's Advocate, Synthesizer, Wrapper) and refine a content analysis scheme to assess function fulfillment in online discussions. The roles were tested in a semester-long mixed-level blended educational technology course of 21 students; student feedback was solicited via survey. Roles designed to elicit the functions give direction, use theory, bring in source, respond, and summarize showed a greater degree of function fulfillment than roles which were not. Students found the Starter role very valuable for giving direction to the discussion, and saw moderate value in the Synthesizer and Wrapper role's summaries. The Devil's Advocate role did not fulfill its respond function but was valued by students, suggesting a new possible critique function. All roles were found to use theory, possibly due to task structure. Implications for future research and practice in the design of online discussions are discussed.

AB - While assigning student roles is a popular technique in online discussions, roles and the responsibilities allocated to them have not been consistently assigned. This makes it difficult to compare implementations and generate principled guidance for role design. This study critically examined frequently assigned student roles and identified a set of seven common functions they ask learners to perform (motivate others to contribute, give direction to the conversation, provide new ideas, use theory to ground the discussion, bring in (relevant external) sources, respond to previous comments, and summarize existing contributions). The latter six functions were used to generate a targeted set of role descriptions (Traffic Director, Starter, Inventor, Importer, Mini-me, Elaborator, Questioner, Devil's Advocate, Synthesizer, Wrapper) and refine a content analysis scheme to assess function fulfillment in online discussions. The roles were tested in a semester-long mixed-level blended educational technology course of 21 students; student feedback was solicited via survey. Roles designed to elicit the functions give direction, use theory, bring in source, respond, and summarize showed a greater degree of function fulfillment than roles which were not. Students found the Starter role very valuable for giving direction to the discussion, and saw moderate value in the Synthesizer and Wrapper role's summaries. The Devil's Advocate role did not fulfill its respond function but was valued by students, suggesting a new possible critique function. All roles were found to use theory, possibly due to task structure. Implications for future research and practice in the design of online discussions are discussed.

KW - Asynchronous communication

KW - College instruction

KW - Computer mediated communication

KW - Content analysis

KW - Cooperative learning

KW - Discussion groups

KW - Role taking

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84856219162&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84856219162&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11423-011-9212-7

DO - 10.1007/s11423-011-9212-7

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84856219162

VL - 60

SP - 55

EP - 82

JO - Educational Technology Research and Development

JF - Educational Technology Research and Development

SN - 1042-1629

IS - 1

ER -