Lecture Notes in Computer Science- P79 pps

A Sociogram Analysis on Group Interaction in an Online Discussion Forum 379 Fig. 1. The interface of group discussion forum 2.4 Data Collection Data in this research were collected from group discussion forum in WebCL. The postings in the discussion forum included two sessions produced by students when they were working for the group task one and two. The data also included two catego- ries based on group task accordingly. When a posting was analysed, it needed to be identified who posted it, its purpose, and communication target. The results were used for a sociogram analysis. 3 Data Analysis 3.1 Interaction within Group One Group interaction within group one of the group task one is presented in Figure 2. Fig. 2. The interactions within the group one for the first group task The total number of messages posted for the group task one was 29 and the average number of postings was 5.8. Mr. Zxl107 posted 12 messages to other 2 persons and the centre of the group. Miss Zhenzhen posted 10 messages to other 2 persons and the centre Centre Zxl107 Dongweidan Zhenzhen Einstein Missuxp 7.0 5.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 380 J. Zhao of the group. Mr. Einstein posted 5 messages to other 3 persons and the centre of the group. Mr. Dongweidan posted 1 message to the centre of the group. Mr. Missuxp posted only 1 message to the centre of the group. The number of messages to the group centre was 14 (48.3%). The result reveals that almost the half messages were posted to the group task. It means that the half of the interaction was taken place among group centre and participants, rather than among participants. Einstein was the best active student in group one because he communicated with other 3 persons. Zhenzhen and Zxl107 were the second active students because they interacted with other 2 students. Dongweidan was the third active student. During the interaction process, he communicated with other 1 student. Missuxp was the weakest active student and no other students communicated with him. Figure 2 demonstrates that 93.1% messages were sent by 3 most active students posting. Other 2 students only contributed their group 6.9%. Group interaction for the group task two in group one is described in Figure 3. Fig. 3. The interactions within the group one for the second group task Total number of the messages posted by students for the group task two was 32 and average number of postings was 6.4. This number was a little bit bigger than the number of the messages for the first group task. Mr. Zxl107 posted 12 messages for the second group task. Miss Zhezhen posted 8 messages to the group. Mr. Einstein contributed 6 messages to the group work. Mr. Missuxp posted 4 messages to the group. Mr. Dongweidan posted 2 messages to group. The number of messages to the group centre was 19 (59.4%). It demonstrates that more than half messages were posted to the group task, rather than for interaction among different participants. Miss Zhenzhen and Mr. Einstein were the best active students because they inter- acted with other 4 students. Mr. Missuxp was the second active student because he Centre Zxl107 Dongweidan Zhenzhen Einstein Missux p 9.0 6.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 A Sociogram Analysis on Group Interaction in an Online Discussion Forum 381 communicated with other 3 students. Mr. Zxl107 and Mr. Dongweidan were the third active students who interacted with other 2 students. The number of messages for the group task two was increased (29 vs. 32), which reveals that group interaction was more active. The number of messages posted by 3 students for the group task two (Mr. Zxl107, Miss Zhenzhe, and Mr. Einstein) was reduced (81.25% vs. 18.75%), and it demonstrates that the interaction was much more average. The number of the messages to the group centre for the group task two was increased (48.3% vs. 59.4%), which illustrates that the interaction among students was less active. 3.2 Interaction within Group Two The interaction within group two for the group task one is described in Figure 4. Fig. 4. The interaction within group two for the first group task The total number of the messages posted by students for the group task one was 25 and the average number of the postings was 5. Mr. Xiuyulin posted 8 messages (32%), Miss Pearl posted 7 messages (28%), Mr. Fragrad contributed 5 messages (20%), and Mr. Kingston posted 4 messages (16%). According to their postings, these four students were most active. Mr. Felix was less active because he only posted 1 message to the group and receives 1 message from Mr. Fragrad. 2 students posted messages were less than the average number. The number of messages to the group centre was 13 (52%). It demonstrates that less than half messages were for the interaction among participants. Mr. Fragrad interacted with other 3 students and he was the most active student in the group. Miss Peral, Mr. Xiuyulin, and Mr. Kingston were the second active stu- dents. Each of them interacted with the other 2 students. Mr. Felix was the weakest active student in the group and only 1 student interacted with him. The interaction within group two for the group task two is presented in Figure 5. The total number of the messages posted by students for the group task two was 42 and the average number of the messages was 8.4. Miss Pearl posted 11 messages (26.2%). Mr. Xiuyulin posted 10 messages (23.8%). Mr. Fragrad posted 9 messages Centre Pearl Xiuyulin Fragrad Kingston Felix 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 382 J. Zhao (21.4%). The number of messages was posted by Mr. Kingston was just less than the average number (8). These four students posted the most messages (90.1%) for the group task. Comparing with the number of the messages in the group task one, it was more average in the second group task. The number of messages to the group centre was 17 (40.5%), which means more than half messages were used for communicating between or among participants. This number indicates that students were more active for the group task two. Fig. 5. The interaction within group two for the second task Miss Pearl and Mr. Kingston were the most active students within the group, be- cause they interacted with other 4 students. However, Miss Pearl posted 7 messages for interacting with other students. Mr. Kingston just posted 5 messages. Therefore, Miss Pearl was the best active student. Mr. Kinston was the second most active stu- dent in the group. Mr. Xiuyulin and Mr. Fragrad were the third most active students. Mr. Felix was the less active student in the group. The increased number of messages for the group task two (25 vs. 42) illustrates that the interaction was much more active. The reduced number of messages to the group centre for the group task two (52% vs. 40.5%) reveals that the interaction between or among students was much more active. The reduced number of messages posted by three most active students (Mr. Fragrad, Miss Pearl, and Xiuyulin) for the second group task (80% vs. 71.4%) demonstrates that the interaction was more average. 3.3 Interaction within Group Three The interaction within group three for the group task one is described in Figure 6. Only 3 students were within this group. The total number of the messages for the first group task was 15 and the average number of the messages was 5. Mr. Byronspm posted 6 messages (40%), Miss Gigi posted 5 messages (33.3%), and Miss Tina posted 4 messages (26.7%). The messages were posted by them were average. Ac- cording to the number of their postings, Mr. Byronspm was most active student. Centre Fragrad Xiuyulin Kingston Felix 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Pearl 1.0 A Sociogram Analysis on Group Interaction in an Online Discussion Forum 383 Fig. 6. The interaction in group three for the first group task The number of messages to the group centre was 10 (66.7%), which means that most messages were posted for the group task, rather than for the communication between or among participants. The interaction within group three for the group task two is presented in Figure 7. Fig. 7. The interaction in group three for the second group task The total number of postings for the second task was 21 and the average number of the messages was 7. Miss Gigi posted 9 messages (42.9%), Mr. Byronspm posted 7 messages (33.3%), and Miss Tina posted 6 messages (28.6%). According to their postings, Miss Gigi was most active student. The number of the messages to the group centre was 11 (52.4%), which means more than half messages were posted for the group task, rather than for the communi- cation between or among participants. The increased number of the messages for the group task two (15 vs. 21) demon- strates that the interaction for the group task two was more active. The reduced num- ber of the messages to the group centre (66.7% vs. 52.4%) reveals that the interaction between or among students was more active. 3.4 Interaction within Group Four The interaction within group four for the group task one is presented in Figure 8. Centre Byronspm Tina Gigi 3.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Centre B y rons pm Tina Gigi 5.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 . that the interaction among students was less active. 3.2 Interaction within Group Two The interaction within group two for the group task one is described in Figure 4. Fig. 4. The interaction. Analysis 3.1 Interaction within Group One Group interaction within group one of the group task one is presented in Figure 2. Fig. 2. The interactions within the group one for the first. students posting. Other 2 students only contributed their group 6.9%. Group interaction for the group task two in group one is described in Figure 3. Fig. 3. The interactions within the group